IDISP004 vs DataColumn

[nulltoken]

This is a little bit similar to #90, in the sense that the Fluent Interfaces comes in the way.

var dataTable = new DataTable()

#pragma warning disable IDISP004 // Don't ignore return value of type IDisposable.
dataTable.Columns.Add("Id", typeof(Guid));
#pragma warning restore IDISP004 // Don't ignore return value of type IDisposable.

// Do rocket science with that dataTable thingie

Relevant (maybe): https://stackoverflow.com/questions/913228/should-i-dispose-dataset-and-datatable

Thoughts? Would that be worthwhile to special case those types?

[JohanLarsson]

I say we special case everything in the framework and common nugets. Never hesitate to write issues!
I write very little web and database stuff so this analyzer relies on issues from you guys to handle those APIs in a reasonable way.

Goal is that we should only need pragma when cheating, ambitious goal.

We have a gitter room if you are interested in hanging out and chat. Everyone welcome!

Issues is still the best way to report bugs of course.

[bclothier]

Just a thought - you could consider using attributes for this, too.

Example:

At assembly level:

[assembly: ExemptIDisposableTypes{typeof(DataTable), typeof(DataColumn)]

At a class level (for user code):

[ExemptIDisposableType]
public class StrangeIDisposableThingie : IDisposable {...}

Not sure if possible to enforce attributes on namespaces. I doubt that, though.

[JohanLarsson]

Yes, attributes makes sense. #92
For framework and common nugets we should still have reasonable defaults.