== Why is this an issue?

The ``++Monitor.Pulse++`` call releases the object on which it was called and wakes up the first thread waiting for the lock on that object. Significantly, it only releases _one_ lock, and if multiple locks are held when it is called deadlocks could result.

=== Noncompliant code example

[source,csharp]
----
public void doSomething(Object obj) 
{  
  lock (this) //first lock
  {
    lock (obj) {  // second lock
      // ...
      Monitor.Pulse(obj); // Noncompliant; only the second lock is released
    }
  }
}
----

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

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

=== Message

Remove this "Monitor.Pulse" call; it only releases the lock on "xxx", leaving the one on "yyy" intact.


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

=== on 16 Jun 2015, 11:21:35 Tamas Vajk wrote:
\[~ann.campbell.2], could you please go through this C# specific version of the rule?

=== on 16 Jun 2015, 13:35:03 Ann Campbell wrote:
Looks good [~tamas.vajk]

include::../comments-and-links.adoc[]

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