News
uho, where's my gendarme ?
You might have noticed that gendarme isn't present anymore under the /
cecil SVN repository. Well it's been moved under /mono-tools so you'll
need to check it out again. But please make sure you don't loose any
pending patches in the process!
Why the change ? well for a few good reasons, including:
Re: [gendarme] MonoDevelop addin ideas
Hello Ben,
I never looked at FxCop API so I'm not sure what it involves (or if it's
license makes this possible or not).
You should talk to Dan (also on this list, "ex" on IRC). He made a
Smokey addin during GHOP.
MonoDevelop addin ideas
Hey guys,
I have some ideas for several improvements to the monodevelop gendarme
addin
* Split into several addins
MonoDevelop.CodeAnalysis
MonoDevelop.CodeAnalysis.Genda rme
Gendarme isn't the only code analysis tool around, so in the future MD
might want to support multiple code analysis tools, for example:
Re: [gendarme] Should we keep IModuleRule ?
Hey !
Apologies for my late answer.
IMHO if there aren't any rule using it and we can add back it easily
later, we should remove IModuleRule. The code should be maintained and
if we don't use it, we haven't any reason for maintain it.
This is perfect, the February 6th I will finish my exams and I will be
Should we keep IModuleRule ?
since:
- we don't have any rule using it ?
- I can only think (from my notes) of one such rule, any other
candidates ?
- we could implement them, if required, from IAssemblyRule and and
iterating the Modules ?
(note:
Re: RFC: Unit tests simplification
Much more is available, same bat-url
Please comment!
Sebastien
Re: [gendarme] Re: RFC: Unit tests simplification
Hey Sebastien,
Thanks you very much :)
No, I haven't seen those methods as overloads because I'm used to check
first the rule success or failure, after the number of violations and
finally the message types.
Then, with these new methods, I can check all in one line. This 2 last
comments doesn't make sense, sorry.
Re: RFC: Unit tests simplification
Hola Néstor,
No problem, I knew you were busy and I hope everything went fine with
your exam :)
Yes, that would also match better with the other changes that are
planned, like a DoesNotApply return value.
I think that Daniel's overloads should be enough, unless you have some
thing specific in mind ?
Re: RFC: Unit tests simplification
Hi, I updated the sources but just noticed your comment.
Okay, I'll fix that.
I'm not sure it's neccessary. These are all _overloads_ so you can
check for a failure in one line - both if you also need to check for
messages count/type and if you needn't.
Thanks!
Dan.
Re: [gendarme] RFC: Unit tests simplification
Hola Sebastien,
Cool! I have reviewed the files, and it's a good work.
Yes, first of all, sorry for the delayment answering the e-mail. I
have just finished my first exam now.
Second, my 2 cents:
* public abstract class