Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Create rule S6670: Trace.Write and Trace.WriteLine should not be used #2538

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Mar 14, 2024
Merged

Create rule S6670: Trace.Write and Trace.WriteLine should not be used #2538

merged 4 commits into from
Mar 14, 2024

Conversation

github-actions[bot]
Copy link
Contributor

You can preview this rule here (updated a few minutes after each push).

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

@cristian-ambrosini-sonarsource cristian-ambrosini-sonarsource changed the title Create rule S6670 Create rule S6670: Trace.Write and Trace.WriteLine should not be used Jul 20, 2023
martin-strecker-sonarsource
martin-strecker-sonarsource requested changes Jul 20, 2023
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Some clarity improvements. Please check with Antonio if the technical details are correct because I did not check if the claims we took from SO are actually valid.

rules/S6670/csharp/rule.adoc Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
rules/S6670/csharp/rule.adoc Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
rules/S6670/resources.adoc Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
rules/S6670/resources.adoc Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
rules/S6670/vbnet/rule.adoc Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
rules/S6670/vbnet/rule.adoc Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
rules/S6670/metadata.json Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
rules/S6670/metadata.json Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
rules/S6670/why-dotnet.adoc Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
rules/S6670/why-dotnet.adoc Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@sonarqube-next
Copy link

SonarQube Quality Gate for 'rspec-frontend'

Quality Gate passed

Bug A 0 Bugs
Vulnerability A 0 Vulnerabilities
Security Hotspot A 0 Security Hotspots
Code Smell A 0 Code Smells

No Coverage information No Coverage information
No Duplication information No Duplication information

@sonarqube-next
Copy link

SonarQube Quality Gate for 'rspec-tools'

Quality Gate passed

Bug A 0 Bugs
Vulnerability A 0 Vulnerabilities
Security Hotspot A 0 Security Hotspots
Code Smell A 0 Code Smells

No Coverage information No Coverage information
No Duplication information No Duplication information

martin-strecker-sonarsource
martin-strecker-sonarsource approved these changes Jul 20, 2023
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@cristian-ambrosini-sonarsource
Copy link
Contributor

Together with @antonioaversa, @martin-strecker-sonarsource and @csaba-sagi-sonarsource we discussed this rule and S6675 due to a potential overlap.
After a small investigation through SourceGraph we realized that S6670 could be noisy. However, we decided to keep this in SonarWay until the rule validation will be carried out on Peach. The rule might be downgraded as soon as we have proof from Peach, the community, or any other source that the raised issues are debatable or noisy.

@gregory-paidis-sonarsource gregory-paidis-sonarsource mentioned this pull request Feb 29, 2024
Closed
@sonarqube-next SonarQube-Next
Copy link

sonarqube-next bot commented Mar 4, 2024

Quality Gate passed Quality Gate passed for 'rspec-frontend'

Issues
0 New issues
0 Fixed issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
No data about Coverage
No data about Duplication

See analysis details on SonarQube

@sonarqube-next SonarQube-Next
Copy link

sonarqube-next bot commented Mar 4, 2024

Quality Gate passed Quality Gate passed for 'rspec-tools'

Issues
0 New issues
0 Fixed issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
No data about Coverage
No data about Duplication

See analysis details on SonarQube

@costin-zaharia-sonarsource costin-zaharia-sonarsource marked this pull request as ready for review March 14, 2024 16:42
@costin-zaharia-sonarsource costin-zaharia-sonarsource merged commit fcafb3e into master Mar 14, 2024
11 checks passed
@costin-zaharia-sonarsource costin-zaharia-sonarsource deleted the rule/add-RSPEC-S6670 branch March 14, 2024 16:44
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@cristian-ambrosini-sonarsource cristian-ambrosini-sonarsource cristian-ambrosini-sonarsource left review comments

@martin-strecker-sonarsource martin-strecker-sonarsource martin-strecker-sonarsource approved these changes

Assignees

@cristian-ambrosini-sonarsource cristian-ambrosini-sonarsource

Labels
dotnet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
5 participants
@cristian-ambrosini-sonarsource @martin-strecker-sonarsource @costin-zaharia-sonarsource @CristianAmbrosini @zsolt-kolbay-sonarsource