Provide more flexibility in the SafeHandle constructor analyzer's visibility detection

[jkoritzinsky]

Allow internal constructors to be used on internal SafeHandle-derived types, and allow private protected constructors to be used on private protected SafeHandle-derived types.

Fixes #5231

cc: @stephentoub

[stephentoub]

Thanks!

[Youssef1313]

I think this PR should target main since it's a false positive fix (in case the analyzer is already in main - if it's not, then ignore the comment).

[jkoritzinsky]

@mavasani Which branch should this PR target? release/6.0.1xx or main?

I don't think I understand the process in this repo for determining which branch to target.

[Youssef1313]

@mavasani Which branch should this PR target? release/6.0.1xx or main?

I don't think I understand the process in this repo for determining which branch to target.

@jkoritzinsky Please ignore my comment, the analyzer isn't in main.

For the process question, I think it is that new analyzers are added to the next release branch (to avoid breaking changes).
False positives are in main (but obviously if an analyzer not in main, then target the release branch it's in)
No clue about false negatives, probably it depends.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #5239 (a66a2ec) into release/6.0.1xx (92cc133) will increase coverage by 0.00%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@               Coverage Diff                @@
##           release/6.0.1xx    #5239   +/-   ##
================================================
  Coverage            95.60%   95.60%           
================================================
  Files                 1236     1236           
  Lines               283895   283949   +54     
  Branches             17032    17036    +4     
================================================
+ Hits                271414   271469   +55     
  Misses               10179    10179           
+ Partials              2302     2301    -1     

[RikkiGibson]

@dotnet/roslyn-analysis for review

[jkoritzinsky]

I do not have permission to merge, so can someone merge this for me when it has been sufficiently reviewed/approved?

[buyaa-n]

I do not have permission to merge, so can someone merge this for me when it has been sufficiently reviewed/approved?

@jkoritzinsky is this ready to merge?

[jkoritzinsky]

As far as I know this is ready for merge.

[buyaa-n]

LGTM merging