C#: Improvements to cs/inconsistent-lock-sequence #287
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
hvitved
requested changes
Oct 9, 2018
…tidy up the tests.
…e itself as well as the lock sequences in order to handle large numbers of results.
calumgrant
force-pushed
the
cs/lock-order
branch
from
793c6d0 to
8c29d0e
Compare
hvitved
approved these changes
Oct 22, 2018
aibaars
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 14, 2021
rb/unsafe-deserialization query
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
I have improved this query:
I initially tried reporting results for locks that were non-static fields, but there was no real way to be sure that the locks were the same instances in both cases, and it produced quite a lot of results that were quite suspicious but hard to defend.
The other problem I found was that there would often be very many pairs of lock statements for the same problem, resulting in many violations. So I changed the query so that the reported entity was the variable itself, and put the lock statements as inserts into the result.
@tom