rspec/rules/S3253/csharp/rule.adoc

== Why is this an issue?

Since the compiler will automatically invoke the base type's no-argument constructor, there's no need to specify its invocation explicitly. Also, when only a single ``++public++`` parameterless constructor is defined in a class, then that constructor can be removed because the compiler would generate it automatically. Similarly, empty ``++static++`` constructors and empty destructors are also wasted keystrokes.


=== Noncompliant code example

[source,csharp]
----
class X
{
  public X() { } // Noncompliant
  static X() { }  // Noncompliant
  ~X() { } // Noncompliant

  ...
}

class Y : X
{
  public Y(int parameter) : base() // Noncompliant
  {
    /* does something with the parameter */
  }
}
----


=== Compliant solution

[source,csharp]
----
class X
{
  ...
}

class Y : X
{
  public Y(int parameter)
  {
    /* does something with the parameter */
  }
}
----



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

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

=== Message

* Remove this redundant "base()" call.
* Remove this redundant [constructor|destructor].


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

=== supercedes: S3575

=== on 20 Jul 2015, 11:35:50 Tamas Vajk wrote:
\[~ann.campbell.2] I adjusted the description a bit.

=== on 20 Jul 2015, 14:12:01 Ann Campbell wrote:
looks good [~tamas.vajk]

=== on 20 May 2021, 10:24:19 Costin Zaharia wrote:
We might need to reconsider the recommendation for static constructors since even if empty they do change the generated IL and the runtime behavior. See: https://csharpindepth.com/articles/BeforeFieldInit[C# and beforefieldinit]

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