Modify rule S2198: LaYC format

[antonioaversa]

Review

A dedicated reviewer checked the rule description successfully for:

• logical errors and incorrect information
• information gaps and missing content
• text style and tone
• PR summary and labels follow the guidelines

[csaba-sagi-sonarsource]

Do you think it would be worth it linking the msdn documentation to the types? Like
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/visual-basic/language-reference/data-types/ulong-data-type for ulong?
This would enable users to find the ranges more quickly.

[antonioaversa]

I have added two links:

• to the paragraph on the page about integral numeric types, that shows ranges for all numeric types
• to the page for the char data type, that shows the range for the type

I have also added etc. since the list provided here is not comprehensive.

[csaba-sagi-sonarsource]

What would be the quickfix in your opinion?
Is it just removing the comparison?
I am afraid that might change the behaviour of the code. Imagine for example:

If (f > double.Maxvalue)
{
Console.WriteLine("I am never printed");
}

If you remove the check, the code will actually execute. Would you in this case remove also the body of the if as it was unreachable code?

[antonioaversa]

The fix would either remove the entire if block, or just the if condition.
For example, if the code is if (f > double.MaxValue) Body the entire if would be removed.
If the code is if (f <= double.MaxValue) Body the if would be replaced with Body.
The same would apply to conditions like f < double.MinValue and f >= double.MinValue.

Indeed, there is actually the risk of changing the behavior of the code, for example in the following example:

if (SomeMethod() > int.MaxValue) Console.WriteLine(""Never being executed");

int SomeMethod() => throw new Exception();

If we would apply the code fix here, the entire if block would be removed, and the code would not raise an exception anymore. However, we can limit the code fix to fields only, if we want to avoid this corner case.

Anyway, even if there are subtleties to be taken care of, I would keep the targeted, since there is a realm where in principle the code fix is possible. So I would keep the door open for now, and defer the deeper analysis to a possible future task to specify the code fix behavior.

[csaba-sagi-sonarsource]

Two nitpicky comments. Plus in addition, I would like to ask you to remove the `++ stuff in the base rule.adoc.
I am approving as all of these are optional.

[sonarsource-next]

SonarQube Quality Gate for 'rspec-frontend'

0 Bugs
0 Vulnerabilities
0 Security Hotspots
0 Code Smells

No Coverage information
No Duplication information

[sonarsource-next]

SonarQube Quality Gate for 'rspec-tools'

0 Bugs
0 Vulnerabilities
0 Security Hotspots
0 Code Smells

No Coverage information
No Duplication information

[antonioaversa]

Two nitpicky comments. Plus in addition, I would like to ask you to remove the `++ stuff in the base rule.adoc. I am approving as all of these are optional.

I have removed the rule.adoc at top-level completely since all other languages have been removed as not implemented.

[csaba-sagi-sonarsource]

LGTM!