CA1062 raised if Contract.Requires uses TException

[azegallo]

Analyzer package

Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.FxCopAnalyzers

Package Version

v2.9.7 (Latest)

Diagnostic ID

CA1062

Repro steps

1. Inside a method use Contract.Requires<ArgumentNullException>(param != null)

Expected behavior

Nothing.

Actual behavior

CA1062 raised

CA1062 not raised if the TException is not used.

[Evangelink]

@mavasani My understanding is that CodeContracts is deprecated so I am wondering whether we should add this exception.

[Evangelink]

Is there something we want to do on this rule? I see it is disabled and meant to be replaced by a compiler warning.

Do we want to deprecate this rule and remove it on the release/6.0.1xx-preview1 branch?

cc @mavasani

[mavasani]

Do we want to deprecate this rule and remove it on the release/6.0.1xx-preview1 branch?

I do not think we want to deprecate CA1062. I am also not sure if it is planned to be replaced with a compiler warning. It is disabled by default as it uses dataflow analysis, and hence can be noisy + expensive to be enabled by default.

I think we certainly want to update CA1062 messaging to remove the words that recommend use of Code contracts.

[Evangelink]

I do not think we want to deprecate CA1062. I am also not sure if it is planned to be replaced with a compiler warning. It is disabled by default as it uses dataflow analysis, and hence can be noisy + expensive to be enabled by default.

My comment was based on the comment left next to the Disabled state of the rule (see
https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn-analyzers/blob/master/src/NetAnalyzers/Core/Microsoft.CodeQuality.Analyzers/QualityGuidelines/ValidateArgumentsOfPublicMethods.cs#L27)

I think we certainly want to update CA1062 messaging to remove the words that recommend use of Code contracts.

Do we want to simply remove this mention or change it to recommend System.Diagnostics.Contracts.Contract?

[Youssef1313]

I think we certainly want to update CA1062 messaging to remove the words that recommend use of Code contracts.

Duplicate of #3134