I want to create an extension to recognize specific comments in my code. I will use this to signal code smells by using the //# comment prefix. One feature of this extension will be to generate warnings for each comment encountered while compiling the code. Is it possible to do this?
I don't think you can hook into the compiler to generate warning. However, the "Error List" view aggregates errors, warnings and messages from multiple sources. Would it be good enough for you to simply append to that list?
Here's a link I could find on the subject : http://www.mztools.com/articles/2008/MZ2008022.aspx
There is a sample called CodeSweep that detects certain strings in comments (it is written to look for mild swear words) that adds tasks to your Task List. http://code.msdn.microsoft.com/Code-Sweep-3bfb7bb5 Reading this code could help you write your own extension if you can't use it as-is.
You could also use the existing task functionality and add your own keywords (like the out-of-the-box //HACK and //TODO - you could add //SMELL) which is quicker but gives you less control. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/zce12xx2(v=VS.100).aspx. This may be all you need.
Related
I'm creating code for interfaces specified in IBM Rational Rhapsody. Rhapsody implicitly generates include statements for other data types used in my interfaces. But I would like to have more control over the include statements, so I specify them explicitly as text elements in the source artifacts of the component. Therefore I would like to prevent Rhapsody from generating the include statements itself. Is this possible?
If this can be done, it is mostly likely with Properties. In the feature box click on properties and filter by 'include' to see some likely candidates. Not all of the properties have descriptions of what exactly they do so good luck.
EDIT:
I spent some time looking through the properties as well an could not find any to get what you want. It seems likely you cannot do this with the basic version of Rhapsody. IBM does license an add-on to customize the code generation, called Rules Composer (I think); this would almost certainly allow you to customize the includes but at quite a cost.
There are two other possible approaches. Depending on how you are customizing the include statements you may be able to write a simple shell script, perhaps using sed, and then just run that script to update your code every time Rhapsody generates it.
The other approach would be to use the Rhapsody API to create a plugin/tool that iterates through all the interfaces and changes the source artifacts accordingly. I have not tried this method myself but I know my coworkers have used the API to do similar things.
Finally I found the properties that let Rhapsody produce the required output: GenerateImplicitDependencies for several elements and GenerateDeclarationDependency for Type elements. Disabling these will avoid the generation of implicit include statements.
Basically, our solution is composed of about 30 sub-projects.. and growing. Compiling this monster is fast and compiler warnings/errors/general output just scrolls by in a mishmash of ... well, poo. On unix it's easy to write a filter to "pretty-ify" the compiler output into something readable and, ultimately, useful.
Has anyone done this for VS2010? Something color coded as a minimum and one that would consolidate all the different projects would be ideal. Essentially, I'd love to have my compiler output displayed in a tree form with options to have all the children be closed unless there is a warning or error.
I also don't mind creating something for this or even having a macro that runs after the compiling is done that creates a more organized output of the whole mess.
Thanks in advance,
Scott
try vscommands 2010. It can colour the build/debug outputs and you can define your own formatting (warnings, errors, exceptions, code contracts ect.)
Try as I might to keep [SuppressMessage]s to a minimum in the codebase, new ones continue to get introduced. I would like some way to say in the code "I've reviewed this [SuppressMessage] and it is 'acceptable'".
One thought was to create my own My.CodeAnalysis.SuppressMessageAttribute class which inherits from System.Diagnostics.CodeAnalysis.SuppressMessageAttribute, but that class is sealed.
I'm sure I could cobble together something with a comment near the attribute and a post-processing step, but I'd like to stick to what is available "in the box" with Visual Studio 2010.
Even if the attribute weren't sealed, a subclassing approach would not work since the code analysis engine screens for exact SuppressMessageAttribute instances. As current versions are written, the engine would completely ignore subclass instances.
Personally, I use the following approach for management of suppressions:
All "permanent" suppressions must
have a Justification property that
explains the reason for the
suppression.
Where possible, permanent
suppressions must be placed in the
target code file. Otherwise, they
must be placed at the top of the
GlobalSuppressions file.
Temporary suppressions must all be
placed below a "Temporary
suppressions" header comment in the
GlobalSuppressions file, and they
should not be assigned a
justification.
All permanent suppressions are
subject to code review, in exactly
the same manner as the code itself.
I use difference detection to flag
code for review, so I can see which
suppressions have been added or
changed just as easily as I can see
which code has been modified.
Temporary suppressions must all be removed by a pre-defined phase of the project. After this point has passed, a rule that detects missing Justification properties is enabled.
If this sort of thing wouldn't work for you, another approach would be to use stand-alone FxCop to annotate your suppressed violations. Unfortunately, these annotations would reside outside your code base, but maybe that would suit you better if you want to prevent developers from "blessing" their own suppressions.
When you right-click on the CA warning in the errors list, one of the options given is Suppress Message(s) -> In Project Suppression File. When you select that, Visual Studio will add a line like the following to a GlobalSuppressions.cs file in your project:
[assembly: System.Diagnostics.CodeAnalysis.SuppressMessage("Microsoft.Naming", "CA1704:IdentifiersShouldBeSpelledCorrectly", MessageId = "Autofac")]
This keeps them grouped together and out of your code files. Is this what you are trying to get at?
...any change?
The scenario is this:
For our company we develop a standard how code should look.
This will be the MS full rule set as it looks now.
For some specific projects we may want to turn off specific rules. Simply because for a specific project this is a "known exception". Example? CA1026 - while perfectly ok in most cases, there are 1-2 specific libraries we dont want to change those.
We also want to avoid having a custom rule set. OTOH putting in a suppress attribute on every occurance gets pretty convoluted pretty fast.
Any way to turn off a code analysis warning for a complete assembly without a custom rule set? We rather have that in a specific file (GlobalSuppressions.cs) than in a rule set for maintenance reasons, and to be more explicit ;)
There is no way to create an assembly-level exclusion that will cover all violations of that rule for types and/or members within the assembly.
You could probably still use the CodeAnalysisRules element in your project file, but this is essentially just as much work as a custom ruleset, and more difficult to track given that it's not shown in the project properties UI.
Regardless of the mechanism you would prefer to use, you should also consider whether you want to simply exclude existing violation or whether you want new violations to be introduced. If the former, you should add SuppressMessage attributes for the existing violations. If the latter, you should disable the rule for the assembly.
BTW, in case you weren't aware of this, you can suppress multiple violations at once in the violation list in VStudio.
You'd actually have more flexibility of exclusions with CodeIt.Right for static analysis. And saved all that time :)
I have a VS project with an IntermediateDirectory like this: "....\temp\$(SolutionName)\$(ProjectName)".
I can read this value using a macro or add in, however, I would need the actual directory to manipulate files there. Right now, I manually replace the "$(SolutionName)" and "$(ProjectName)" with the respective values, which works fine but might become complicated when different macros or even user macros from property sheets are used.
So my question is:
Does the Visual Studio API have a built in function to expand macros like these? Or is there some other elegant solution?
There is an elegant solution! But I only know the one that applies to C++ projects.
Assuming you're in a C# add-in:
// Get the main project from the first startup project
VCProject vcMainProject = (VCProject)(_applicationObject.Solution.SolutionBuild.StartupProjects as IVCCollection).Item(1);
Project mainProj = (Project)_vcMainProject .Object;
// Get the configuration we'll be using
IVCCollection cfgs = (IVCCollection)_vcMainProject .Configurations;
VCConfiguration vcCfg = (VCConfiguration) cfgs.Item(mainProj.ConfigurationManager.ActiveConfiguration.ConfigurationName + "|" + mainProj.ConfigurationManager.ActiveConfiguration.PlatformName);
string finalString = vcCfg.Evaluate("....\temp\$(SolutionName)\$(ProjectName)");
You can also check out this page:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/czt44k0x%28VS.71%29.aspx
If you're not using this for C++, there should be a similar interface for the Project, Configuration, and Solution classes provided for other languages (C# and VB).
As far as i know, there is no API available that will expand those macro values. Although it shouldn't be too hard to write a quick and dirty implementation that deals with only the values that you care about.
For instance, in this case you only care about 2 values (SolutionName and ProjectName). If these are the values you are primarily interested in use a simple search and replace with the best values.
Yes this is a sub-optimal solution. But it may help to unblock your progress.