- 08 3月, 2020 2 次提交
-
-
由 Cyrus Najmabadi 提交于
-
由 Cyrus Najmabadi 提交于
-
- 23 1月, 2020 1 次提交
-
-
由 Jonathon Marolf 提交于
-
- 03 10月, 2019 1 次提交
-
-
由 Cyrus Najmabadi 提交于
-
- 28 2月, 2019 1 次提交
-
-
由 Joey Robichaud 提交于
* Add a synced use enhanced color checkbox to C# and Basic advanced options. * Use optionstore in DiagnosticWindow option pages * Add option search keywords for enhanced color option
-
- 01 2月, 2019 2 次提交
-
-
由 Cyrus Najmabadi 提交于
-
由 Cyrus Najmabadi 提交于
-
- 07 11月, 2018 1 次提交
-
-
由 Manish Vasani 提交于
-
- 31 10月, 2018 1 次提交
-
-
由 Manish Vasani 提交于
-
- 16 9月, 2018 1 次提交
-
-
由 Cyrus Najmabadi 提交于
-
- 29 8月, 2018 1 次提交
-
-
由 Manish Vasani 提交于
-
- 28 8月, 2018 1 次提交
-
-
由 Manish Vasani 提交于
1. Break the analyzer into two separate diagnostics for flagging unused and unread members. Latter rule has no code fix. 2. Remove all UI option elements for the added diagnostics and turn the rules off by default for now. 3. Bail out for invalid operations and syntax errors. 4. Handle doc comments and nameof - report unread member diagostics instead of unused member diagnostics if referenced in non-read/write context.
-
- 25 8月, 2018 2 次提交
-
-
由 Manish Vasani 提交于
-
由 Manish Vasani 提交于
Analyzer flags two cases: members with no read/writes and members with only writes. 1. Members with no read or writes: `Type '{0}' has an unused private member '{1}' which can be removed.` 2. Only writes: `Type '{0}' has a private member '{1}' which can be removed as the value assigned to it is never used.` Code fix removes the unused member declaration. Fixes #24225 Open questions: 1. Current analyzer design uses a single code style option for all members and both the above kinds of unused members. We can potentially have multiple options, but this should probably be done based on feedback. 2. Should the analyzer use different diagnostic IDs for the above two kinds of unused members? This will mean that the FixAll experience will need multiple iterations for removing unused members. 3. Should we update the code fix (or have an additional code fix) that also updates the write references for the case (2) above? Or is it better to leave the references to break the code so the user can analyze if the value being assigned can also be removed. The PR current chooses the latter approach as it is more conservative and unlikely to cause silent breaks.
-
- 08 6月, 2018 1 次提交
-
-
由 Sam Harwell 提交于
Fixes #27038
-
- 09 5月, 2018 1 次提交
-
-
由 Cyrus Najmabadi 提交于
-
- 08 5月, 2018 1 次提交
-
-
由 Cyrus Najmabadi 提交于
-
- 04 5月, 2018 1 次提交
-
-
由 CyrusNajmabadi 提交于
Add features to offer using conditional expressions ```?:``` over explicit if-statement flows. (#26236)
-
- 01 5月, 2018 1 次提交
-
-
由 Cyrus Najmabadi 提交于
-
- 08 4月, 2018 1 次提交
-
-
由 Cyrus Najmabadi 提交于
-
- 30 3月, 2018 1 次提交
-
-
由 Šimon Koníček 提交于
-
- 29 3月, 2018 1 次提交
-
-
由 Cyrus Najmabadi 提交于
-
- 20 3月, 2018 1 次提交
-
-
由 Cyrus Najmabadi 提交于
-
- 19 3月, 2018 4 次提交
-
-
由 Cyrus Najmabadi 提交于
-
由 Cyrus Najmabadi 提交于
-
由 Šimon Koníček 提交于
-
由 Cyrus Najmabadi 提交于
-
- 14 3月, 2018 1 次提交
-
-
由 Cyrus Najmabadi 提交于
-
- 13 3月, 2018 1 次提交
-
-
由 Cyrus Najmabadi 提交于
-
- 17 2月, 2018 1 次提交
-
-
由 Abraham Hosch 提交于
-
- 09 12月, 2017 1 次提交
-
-
由 Julien Couvreur 提交于
-
- 23 11月, 2017 1 次提交
-
-
由 Cyrus Najmabadi 提交于
-
- 19 7月, 2017 1 次提交
-
-
由 CyrusNajmabadi 提交于
-
- 12 7月, 2017 1 次提交
-
-
由 Julien Couvreur 提交于
-
- 29 6月, 2017 2 次提交
-
-
由 Sam Harwell 提交于
-
由 Sam Harwell 提交于
-
- 15 3月, 2017 1 次提交
-
-
由 CyrusNajmabadi 提交于
-
- 13 3月, 2017 1 次提交
-
-
由 CyrusNajmabadi 提交于
-
- 08 12月, 2016 1 次提交
-
-
由 David Poeschl 提交于
Fixes part 3 of #9674
-
- 13 11月, 2016 1 次提交
-
-
由 CyrusNajmabadi 提交于
-