Closed rkeithhill closed 9 years ago
Hi Keith.
We are working on a new feature called ScriptAnalyzer Profiles which might be able to solve this. [more details soon..]
Essentially a user can define a profile (collection of rules+customizations from one/more containers) that fits his environment.
There will be a few inbox shipped profiles which can be used as a starting point for customization.
-Raghu
Thanks. Profiles as I understand them are a bit different but also needed. In fact, I would give Profiles a higher priority than base-lining support.
v1 of Profiles is available in current Master branch.
Sample: https://github.com/PowerShell/PSScriptAnalyzer/blob/master/Tests/Engine/Profile.ps1
One issue I've seen with adopting code analysis / FxCop on an existing, large code base is that the number of warnings and errors can be overwhelming. Additionally, code may be released and management may frown heavily on changing existing, released code to eliminate CA warnings. Sometimes we can make the case for CA errors. However, the project could benefit from turning on CA for new code.
I believe the PowerShell ScriptAnalyzer could benefit from this approach. Folks have an existing large script base that has been working for years. Most likely they won't want to change working script to eliminate warnings. There should probably be an option to point out errors (or not) when creating the baseline. After the baseline is created, the ScriptAnalyzer would then generate warnings and errors for new script as well as modified script.