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.
100 lines
2.0 KiB
Plaintext
100 lines
2.0 KiB
Plaintext
== Why is this an issue?
|
|
|
|
``++Enumerable.Sum()++`` always executes addition in a ``++checked++`` context, so an ``++OverflowException++`` will be thrown if the value exceeds ``++MaxValue++`` even if an ``++unchecked++`` context was specified. Using an ``++unchecked++`` context anyway represents a misunderstanding of how ``++Sum++`` works.
|
|
|
|
|
|
This rule raises an issue when an ``++unchecked++`` context is specified for a ``++Sum++`` on integer types.
|
|
|
|
|
|
=== Noncompliant code example
|
|
|
|
[source,csharp]
|
|
----
|
|
void Add(List<int> list)
|
|
{
|
|
int d = unchecked(list.Sum()); // Noncompliant
|
|
|
|
unchecked
|
|
{
|
|
int e = list.Sum(); // Noncompliant
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
----
|
|
|
|
|
|
=== Compliant solution
|
|
|
|
[source,csharp]
|
|
----
|
|
void Add(List<int> list)
|
|
{
|
|
int d = list.Sum();
|
|
|
|
try
|
|
{
|
|
int e = list.Sum();
|
|
}
|
|
catch (System.OverflowException e)
|
|
{
|
|
// exception handling...
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
----
|
|
|
|
|
|
=== Exceptions
|
|
|
|
When the ``++Sum()++`` call is inside a ``++try-catch++`` block, no issues are reported.
|
|
|
|
[source,csharp]
|
|
----
|
|
void Add(List<int> list)
|
|
{
|
|
unchecked
|
|
{
|
|
try
|
|
{
|
|
int e = list.Sum();
|
|
}
|
|
catch (System.OverflowException e)
|
|
{
|
|
// exception handling...
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ifdef::env-github,rspecator-view[]
|
|
|
|
'''
|
|
== Implementation Specification
|
|
(visible only on this page)
|
|
|
|
=== Message
|
|
|
|
Refactor this code to handle "OverflowException".
|
|
|
|
|
|
'''
|
|
== Comments And Links
|
|
(visible only on this page)
|
|
|
|
=== on 13 Apr 2015, 10:44:27 Freddy Mallet wrote:
|
|
@Tamas, according to you, does this rule makes sense ? Thanks
|
|
|
|
=== on 29 Jun 2015, 14:58:19 Tamas Vajk wrote:
|
|
\[~ann.campbell.2] I've modified the description to be more specific. Also, I've changed the examples to use ``++List<int>++`` because for ``++double++``s it won't throw the ``++OverflowException++``.
|
|
|
|
|
|
\[~freddy.mallet] Yes, the rule makes sense.
|
|
|
|
=== on 30 Jun 2015, 14:45:28 Ann Campbell wrote:
|
|
Double-check my edits please [~tamas.vajk]
|
|
|
|
=== on 6 Jul 2015, 09:33:41 Tamas Vajk wrote:
|
|
\[~ann.campbell.2] Looks good.
|
|
|
|
endif::env-github,rspecator-view[]
|