nitpicks

rules/S7135/csharp/metadata.json

@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
+{
+  "title": "Conditional access should not be gratuitous",
+  "type": "CODE_SMELL",
+  "status": "ready",
+  "remediation": {
+    "func": "Constant\/Issue",
+    "constantCost": "1min"
+  },
+  "tags": [
+  ],
+  "defaultSeverity": "Minor",
+  "ruleSpecification": "RSPEC-7135",
+  "sqKey": "S7135",
+  "scope": "All",
+  "defaultQualityProfiles": ["Sonar way"],
+  "quickfix": "targeted",
+  "code": {
+    "impacts": {
+      "MAINTAINABILITY": "LOW"
+    },
+    "attribute": "CLEAR"
+  }
+}

rules/S7135/csharp/rule.adoc

@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+Using https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/language-reference/operators/member-access-operators#null-conditional-operators--and-[conditional access] (`?.`) in C# is a common practice to safely handle potentially null objects and avoid https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/system.nullreferenceexception[NullReferenceException]. However, if you are certain that an object is not null, you should consider not using conditional access and opt for the https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/language-reference/operators/null-forgiving[null-forgiving operator] (`!`) instead if needed under https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/nullable-references[nullable context].
+
+== Why is this an issue?
+
+Not using conditional access when you know an object is not `null` makes the code intent clearer and easier to maintain. It communicates to others reading your code that nullability is not a concern in that particular context. Also, while the performance impact is minimal, conditional access does introduce a slight overhead as it introduces an extra check.
+Finally, since the conditional access is actually an if statement, it introduces a condition that cannot be fully tested, impacting the code coverage.
+
+== How to fix it
+
+If the https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/nullable-references[nullable context] is enabled and compiler raises a warning, you can replace the ? with !, otherwise you should just remove it.
+
+=== Code examples
+
+==== Noncompliant code example
+
+[source,csharp,diff-id=1,diff-type=noncompliant]
+----
+string s = "NotNull";
+_ = s?.ToString(); // Noncompliant
+----
+
+==== Compliant solution
+
+[source,csharp,diff-id=1,diff-type=compliant]
+----
+string s = "NotNull";
+_ = s.ToString(); // Compliant
+----
+
+== Resources
+
+=== Documentation
+* Microsoft Learn - https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/language-reference/operators/member-access-operators#null-conditional-operators--and-[Conditional access]
+* Microsoft Learn - https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/language-reference/operators/null-forgiving[null-forgiving operator]
+* Microsoft Learn - https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/nullable-references[nullable context]
+
+include::../rspecator.adoc[]

rules/S7135/message.adoc

@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
+=== Message
+
+xxx is not null, remove the conditional access.
+
+Under nullable context:
+xxx is not null, remove the conditional access and use `!` if needed.
+

rules/S7135/metadata.json

@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+{
+}

rules/S7135/rspecator.adoc

@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+ifdef::env-github,rspecator-view[]
+
+'''
+== Implementation Specification
+(visible only on this page)
+
+include::message.adoc[]
+
+endif::env-github,rspecator-view[]