43 lines
1.7 KiB
Plaintext
43 lines
1.7 KiB
Plaintext
=== relates to: S2095
|
|
|
|
=== is related to: S2952
|
|
|
|
=== on 13 May 2015, 19:22:06 Ann Campbell wrote:
|
|
\[~tamas.vajk] if this rule comes from R#, please provide the R# rule key.
|
|
|
|
Also, there is the question of classes that ``++Dispose++`` of their ``++IDisposable++`` members, but not from their own ``++Dispose++`` methods. I.e. they call ``++Dispose++`` from some other, randomly-named method. Does this case merit coverage under this rule? A separate rule?
|
|
|
|
=== on 13 May 2015, 19:22:15 Ann Campbell wrote:
|
|
consulted: \http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10956140/does-a-class-need-to-implement-idisposable-when-all-members-are-explicitly-dispo
|
|
|
|
=== on 18 May 2015, 08:20:57 Tamas Vajk wrote:
|
|
\[~ann.campbell.2] I think the separate rule for "implementing IDisposable" (\http://jira.sonarsource.com/browse/RSPEC-2931) is a good idea. Let's keep it this way, we'll see if it generates loads of duplicate issues or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
This rule is not in Resharper.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
=== on 22 May 2015, 09:48:19 Tamas Vajk wrote:
|
|
LGTM
|
|
|
|
=== on 8 Jun 2015, 13:51:45 Ann Campbell wrote:
|
|
updated per SONARCSANA-129. See what you think [~tamas.vajk]
|
|
|
|
=== on 12 Jun 2015, 12:28:01 Tamas Vajk wrote:
|
|
\[~ann.campbell.2] it looks good. I added the exceptions part, could you run through it?
|
|
|
|
=== on 12 Jun 2015, 18:02:36 Ann Campbell wrote:
|
|
This begins to feel like a game of tennis. :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
I edited "block" to "method". Double-check me, please.
|
|
|
|
=== on 15 Jun 2015, 06:28:58 Tamas Vajk wrote:
|
|
\[~ann.campbell.2] It looks good.
|
|
|
|
=== on 5 Feb 2021, 17:35:39 Čaba Šagi wrote:
|
|
Beside the types covered in the description, all types implementing IDisposable should be covered as well. See https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/fundamentals/code-analysis/quality-rules/ca2000[CA2000]
|
|
|