16f6c0aecf
Inline adoc files when they are included exactly once. Also fix language tags because this inlining gives us better information on what language the code is written in.
77 lines
2.5 KiB
Plaintext
77 lines
2.5 KiB
Plaintext
== Why is this an issue?
|
|
|
|
The ``++ServiceContract++`` attribute specifies that a class or interface defines the communication contract of a Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) service. The service operations of this class or interface are defined by ``++OperationContract++`` attributes added to methods. It doesn't make sense to define a contract without any service operations; thus, in a ``++ServiceContract++`` class or interface at least one method should be annotated with ``++OperationContract++``. Similarly, WCF only serves ``++OperationContract++`` methods that are defined inside ``++ServiceContract++`` classes or interfaces; thus, this rule also checks that ``++ServiceContract++`` is added to the containing type of ``++OperationContract++`` methods.
|
|
|
|
|
|
=== Noncompliant code example
|
|
|
|
[source,csharp]
|
|
----
|
|
[ServiceContract]
|
|
interface IMyService // Noncompliant
|
|
{
|
|
int MyServiceMethod();
|
|
}
|
|
----
|
|
|
|
|
|
=== Compliant solution
|
|
|
|
[source,csharp]
|
|
----
|
|
[ServiceContract]
|
|
interface IMyService
|
|
{
|
|
[OperationContract]
|
|
int MyServiceMethod();
|
|
}
|
|
----
|
|
|
|
|
|
ifdef::env-github,rspecator-view[]
|
|
|
|
'''
|
|
== Implementation Specification
|
|
(visible only on this page)
|
|
|
|
=== Message
|
|
|
|
* Add the "OperationContract" attribute to the methods of this [class|interface].
|
|
* Add the "ServiceContract" attribute to this [class|interface].
|
|
|
|
|
|
=== Highlighting
|
|
|
|
type name
|
|
|
|
|
|
'''
|
|
== Comments And Links
|
|
(visible only on this page)
|
|
|
|
=== on 7 Apr 2016, 15:07:19 Tamas Vajk wrote:
|
|
\[~ann.campbell.2] Could you review this spec? Thanks.
|
|
|
|
=== on 7 Apr 2016, 17:49:47 Ann Campbell wrote:
|
|
\[~tamas.vajk] this needs an explanation of _why_ ``++ServiceContract++`` and ``++OperationContract++`` are useless without each other. I'm guessing that will also require a little background on what a ``++ServiceContract++`` is and what an ``++OperationContract++`` is.
|
|
|
|
=== on 8 Apr 2016, 08:57:59 Tamas Vajk wrote:
|
|
\[~ann.campbell.2] What do you think now?
|
|
|
|
=== on 8 Apr 2016, 16:05:40 Ann Campbell wrote:
|
|
Very good [~tamas.vajk]
|
|
|
|
=== on 11 Apr 2016, 10:18:49 Tamas Vajk wrote:
|
|
\[~ann.campbell.2] I added labels to this rule. Let me know if you don't agree with them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also, what does "Partial" completeness mean?
|
|
|
|
=== on 11 Apr 2016, 13:54:49 Ann Campbell wrote:
|
|
\[~tamas.vajk] I've dropped the 'convention' tag which is typically only applied to naming and formatting rules; not to "I think you did something wrong" rules.
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Partial" completion means we're not done writing the rule yet. I've bumped this one up to "full".
|
|
|
|
endif::env-github,rspecator-view[]
|