Fix UseNullPropagationCodeFixProvider for parenthesized property access #74316
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
dotnet-issue-labeler
bot
added
Area-IDE
untriaged
dotnet-policy-service
bot
added
the
Community
CyrusNajmabadi
approved these changes
Jul 9, 2024
|
Thanks! |
|
@dotnet-policy-service agree |
This was referenced Jul 13, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The issue occurs when the code fix provider is calling the
GetWhenPartMatchmethod on it's analyzer (I'm assuming this is done to make sure the analysis is still valid in case we are running multiple code fixes). While the analyzer calls the method with an expression that is already stripped of it's parentheses (array.Length), however the code fix itself calls it with the parentheses kept ((array.Length)). Simplest fix would be to remove the parentheses before the call from the code fix provider. Other solution would be looking into the method and making sure it takes this into consideration, not 100% sure which is correct.Closes #74273