search

shana / google-highly-open-participation-mono

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/google-highly-open-participation-mono
0 stars 0 forks source link

Three Gendarme rules about fields #73

Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
This task is to create three (3) rules for Gendarme [1] to check field for
some conditions that be confusing (or easily forgotten) when using fields.

1. Gendarme.Rules.Security.ArrayFieldsShouldNotBeReadOnlyRule

This rule should warn about read-only arrays because elements inside the 
array are NOT read-only.

2. Gendarme.Rules.Security.NativeFieldsShouldNotBeVisibleRule

This rule is very similar to AvoidPublicInstanceFieldsRule, but someone
turning off the *design* rule should still be warned about the security
aspects of exposing native fields (for reasons similar to
TypeExposeFieldsRule).

3. Gendarme.Rules.Concurrency.NonConstantStaticFieldsShouldNotBeVisible 

This rule should warn for all static fields that are not constant because
their access should be synchronized in multi-threaded applications.

So three easy rules for Gendarme. Ideal if you want to learn Gendarme or Cecil.

To complete the task it must include:
- the rules source code;
- unit tests to ensure the rules works correctly;
- documentation for the web site (see [2] for an example)

This tasks should take between 2-5 days (depending if you already know
Gendarme/Cecil or not).

[1] http://www.mono-project.com/Gendarme
[2] http://groups.google.com/group/gendarme

Original issue reported on code.google.com by sebastie...@gmail.com on 13 Jan 2008 at 3:00

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
I want to claim this task when #79 is closed (it's all posted and tested so hope
there'll be no problems).

Original comment by dan.abra...@gmail.com on 20 Jan 2008 at 11:47

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Hi,

I'm very sorry but I already implemented the rules while waiting for #81 to be
closed. Probably should have put up a notice here... I hope you didn't already 
start
working on this one?

Andreas Noever

Original comment by andreas....@gmail.com on 21 Jan 2008 at 6:04

Attachments:

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
I've implemented them too but didn't post because of #79..
Right, you were first then.

Original comment by dan.abra...@gmail.com on 21 Jan 2008 at 7:55

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Here're mines, just in case you're wondering :-p

Alas..

Original comment by dan.abra...@gmail.com on 21 Jan 2008 at 8:00

Attachments:

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
My docs =)

Original comment by dan.abra...@gmail.com on 21 Jan 2008 at 8:01

Attachments:

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Hey guys, the rules are to *claim* a task when a previous one is complete, then 
start
your work. Here we have claims, without a closed tasks, then source(s) without
claims... :(

I'll be back in a bit (in about one hour on IRC) - I need another network cable 
for
my temporary setup :|

Original comment by sebastie...@gmail.com on 21 Jan 2008 at 12:41

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
task to Andreas, because he has no other claimed task at the moment

note: but please, don't start to work on a task before status is changed to 
'''Claimed'''

Original comment by sebastie...@gmail.com on 21 Jan 2008 at 4:08

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
ArrayFieldsShouldNotBeReadOnlyRule
* nice trick to skip interfaces, enums should be skipped too (delegates too but 
it's
not worth the extra time checking time)
* rule should also apply to protected arrays (with unit tests)

Original comment by sebastie...@gmail.com on 21 Jan 2008 at 4:37

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
NativeFieldsShouldNotBeVisibleRule
* same for enums
* same for protected
* read-only IntPtr and UIntPtr are ok (since they can't be modified)
* HandleRef are fine since the pointer is read-only, so I guess this breaks the
IsNative usage (IsPointer ? with IsNative being IsPointer + HandleRef ?)

Original comment by sebastie...@gmail.com on 21 Jan 2008 at 4:45

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
NonConstantStaticFieldsShouldNotBeVisibleRule
* same enum
* same protected

Make sure to update the unit tests too!
Thanks
Sebastien

Original comment by sebastie...@gmail.com on 21 Jan 2008 at 4:58

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
[deleted comment]
GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
* nice trick to skip interfaces, enums should be skipped too (delegates too but 
it's
not worth the extra time checking time)
* rule should also apply to protected arrays (with unit tests)
changed in all rules.

* read-only IntPtr and UIntPtr are ok (since they can't be modified)
* HandleRef are fine since the pointer is read-only, so I guess this breaks the
IsNative usage (IsPointer ? with IsNative being IsPointer + HandleRef ?)
IsNative() can still be used, but IsInitOnly needs to be checked too.

Documentation updated to reflect the changes. Added "what could 
happen"-Examples for
NonConstantStaticFieldsShouldNotBeVisibleRule.

Original comment by andreas....@gmail.com on 21 Jan 2008 at 6:29

Attachments:

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
ArrayFieldsShouldNotBeReadOnlyRule
* the check isn't correct, and this probably applies to all other rules too, 
since
internal gets reported (please add test cases for that too)
* also, sorry I missed it in the tests earlier, a field can't be visible if 
it's type
isn't visible (i.e. all test have non-public classes, please keep a private 
test case
too ;-).

Original comment by sebastie...@gmail.com on 21 Jan 2008 at 6:43

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
The two other rules are similar (type visibility and handling internal too).
Once fixed, with tests, this task can be closed.
Thanks!
Sebastien

Original comment by sebastie...@gmail.com on 21 Jan 2008 at 6:56

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Fixed the internal issue.

A IsVisible() rock is provided for MethodDefinition, FieldDefinition and
TypeDefinition + UnitTests.

Andreas Noever

Original comment by andreas....@gmail.com on 21 Jan 2008 at 8:29

Attachments:

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Everything looks fine! Will commit all this tonight.
Thanks again :)
Sebastien

Original comment by sebastie...@gmail.com on 21 Jan 2008 at 8:49