CQRS handlers name analyzer + code action

[wojtek2288]

No description provided.

[wojtek2288]

thank god (or roslyn) for this option

[Dragemil]

Will command validators also be handled in a similar way?

[github-actions]

Test Results

  33 files  ±  0  113 suites  +4   59s ⏱️ -1s
624 tests +13  611 ✔️ +13  13 💤 ±0  0 ❌ ±0 
640 runs  +13  620 ✔️ +13  20 💤 ±0  0 ❌ ±0 

Results for commit d4f5ad4. ± Comparison against base commit 00a3e79.

This pull request removes 3 and adds 16 tests. Note that renamed tests count towards both.

LeanCode.CodeAnalysis.Tests.CodeActions.FixCancellationTokenNamingActionTests ‑ Does_not_rename_overridden_and_new_methods(keyword: "new")
LeanCode.CodeAnalysis.Tests.CodeActions.FixCancellationTokenNamingActionTests ‑ Does_not_rename_overridden_and_new_methods(keyword: "override")
LeanCode.CodeAnalysis.Tests.CodeActions.FixCancellationTokenNamingActionTests ‑ Renames_CancellationToken_argument_not_following_convention

LeanCode.CodeAnalysis.Tests.Analyzers.EnsureCQRSHandlersFollowNamingConventionTests ‑ CQRS_handlers_following_naming_convention_are_accepted(cqrsType: "command")
LeanCode.CodeAnalysis.Tests.Analyzers.EnsureCQRSHandlersFollowNamingConventionTests ‑ CQRS_handlers_following_naming_convention_are_accepted(cqrsType: "operation")
LeanCode.CodeAnalysis.Tests.Analyzers.EnsureCQRSHandlersFollowNamingConventionTests ‑ CQRS_handlers_following_naming_convention_are_accepted(cqrsType: "query")
LeanCode.CodeAnalysis.Tests.Analyzers.EnsureCQRSHandlersFollowNamingConventionTests ‑ Command_handlers_not_following_naming_convention_are_rejected
LeanCode.CodeAnalysis.Tests.Analyzers.EnsureCQRSHandlersFollowNamingConventionTests ‑ Operation_handlers_not_following_naming_convention_are_rejected
LeanCode.CodeAnalysis.Tests.Analyzers.EnsureCQRSHandlersFollowNamingConventionTests ‑ Query_handlers_not_following_naming_convention_are_rejected
LeanCode.CodeAnalysis.Tests.Analyzers.EnsureValidatorsFollowNamingConventionTests ‑ Validators_following_naming_convention_are_accepted
LeanCode.CodeAnalysis.Tests.Analyzers.EnsureValidatorsFollowNamingConventionTests ‑ Validators_not_following_naming_convention_are_rejected
LeanCode.CodeAnalysis.Tests.CodeActions.FixCQRSHandlerNamingCodeActionTests ‑ Renames_command_handlers_not_following_naming_convention
LeanCode.CodeAnalysis.Tests.CodeActions.FixCQRSHandlerNamingCodeActionTests ‑ Renames_handlers_to_multiple_contracts_not_following_naming_convention
…

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: 15 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (3757521) 65.19% compared to head (b8619dc) 66.30%.
Report is 1 commits behind head on v8.0-preview.

❗ Current head b8619dc differs from pull request most recent head d4f5ad4. Consider uploading reports for the commit d4f5ad4 to get more accurate results

Files	Patch %	Lines
...lyzers/EnsureCQRSHandlersFollowNamingConvention.cs	91.52%	5 Missing and 5 partials ⚠️
...s/EnsureCommandValidatorsFollowNamingConvention.cs	97.82%	0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
...ysis/CodeActions/FixCQRSHandlerNamingCodeAction.cs	91.66%	1 Missing ⚠️
...CodeActions/FixCommandValidatorNamingCodeAction.cs	85.71%	1 Missing ⚠️
...ixProviders/FixCQRSHandlerNamingCodeFixProvider.cs	92.30%	1 Missing ⚠️
...viders/FixCommandValidatorNamingCodeFixProvider.cs	88.88%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@               Coverage Diff                @@
##           v8.0-preview     #608      +/-   ##
================================================
+ Coverage         65.19%   66.30%   +1.11%     
================================================
  Files               211      217       +6     
  Lines              4864     5069     +205     
  Branches            303      322      +19     
================================================
+ Hits               3171     3361     +190     
- Misses             1602     1611       +9     
- Partials             91       97       +6     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[wojtek2288]

@Dragemil We did not discuss adding similar analyzer for command validators but now when you mention it I think it can be added to the backlog. Btw there is already quick action which will add command validator, but in our case we often copy code from other commands so rename might be also useful. cc: @lukaszgarstecki

[lukaszgarstecki]

I'd say a rename + quickfix can also be helpful for CV. The current analyzer tackles only the case when it's missing, I believe having similar validator as for CH, QH and OH would be nice. Will that be a lot of work @wojtek2288 ?

[lukaszgarstecki]

LGTM. I'd say that we can add CV rule and fix in this PR if this is not too much trouble

[wojtek2288]

Need to wait for #618. As bumping dotnet to 8.0.100 fixes this issue: dotnet/sdk#36434