rspec/rules/S3220/csharp/rule.adoc

== Why is this an issue?

The rules for method resolution are complex and perhaps not properly understood by all coders. The ``++params++`` keyword can make method declarations overlap in non-obvious ways, so that slight changes in the argument types of an invocation can resolve to different methods.


This rule raises an issue when an invocation resolves to a method declaration with ``++params++``, but could also resolve to another non-``++params++`` method too.


=== Noncompliant code example

[source,csharp]
----
public class MyClass
{
    private void Format(string a, params object[] b) { }

    private void Format(object a, object b, object c) { }
}

// ...
MyClass myClass = new MyClass();

myClass.Format("", null, null); // Noncompliant, resolves to the first Format with params, but was that intended?
----



ifdef::env-github,rspecator-view[]

'''
== Implementation Specification
(visible only on this page)

=== Message

Review this call, which partially matches an overload without "params".  The partial match is "XXX".


'''
== Comments And Links
(visible only on this page)

=== on 1 Jul 2015, 17:56:50 Ann Campbell wrote:
Note that this spec has been mapped to R# rule PossiblyMistakenUseOfParamsMethod after discussion with [~tamas.vajk] because they attack the same problem from different ends, and because it's not clear what the message should be if it is the invocation that's marked Noncompliant, as with R#.

=== on 2 Jul 2015, 07:07:10 Tamas Vajk wrote:
\[~ann.campbell.2] I would put ``++params++`` somewhere in the description. Because we don't want to report on all method overloads.

=== on 2 Jul 2015, 12:59:34 Ann Campbell wrote:
LGTM [~tamas.vajk]

=== on 7 Jul 2015, 12:39:24 Ann Campbell wrote:
fix message

=== on 7 Jul 2015, 14:04:15 Ann Campbell wrote:
New case added [~tamas.vajk]. Double-check me, please

=== on 8 Jul 2015, 08:55:31 Tamas Vajk wrote:
\[~ann.campbell.2] Looks good

endif::env-github,rspecator-view[]