Strengthen EditorConfig to help enforce coding standards

[ChrisPulman]

Update code to match updated coding standard.

Produces errors when coding doesn't match styling and recommended C# rules.

[JakenVeina]

to match updated coding standard

What's the coding standard that we follow here?

[ChrisPulman]

to match updated coding standard

What's the coding standard that we follow here?

StyleCop + .editorconfig rules, it's the same set of rules that we run with the other ReactiveMarbles and ReactiveUI projects. The main alterations are ensuring that code is maintained in order of modifier and making suggestions for recommended changes. Errors are raised when there's code that doesn't meet the core requirements.

[glennawatson]

Based on the dotnet runtime settings. Documented on the rxui website.

[RolandPheasant]

Let's get outstanding PRs in before this, otherwise we'll get some merge conflicts.

[RolandPheasant]

I love seeing PRs with these kind of stats

[ChrisPulman]

@JakenVeina src\DynamicData.Tests\Cache\TransformFixtureParallel.cs line 95 - Test Needs fixing or updated Functionality needs checking after PR #771

I have Skipped this test for the moment to ensure that there's no other tests with issues.
Do you think you could check this test to verify it?
Running this test as a single test on your machine with "run until failure" should replicate the issue.

[ChrisPulman]

Skip has been removed to invoke test failure - awaiting Test update or core functionality update.
@RolandPheasant If you still wish to commit this prior to the investigation or update then we should add the skip back in, the test passes on a 2 in 10 basis i.e. its random

[ChrisPulman]

Running the same test on Main doesn't produce the same issue, so perhaps there is a merge issue somewhere.

[RolandPheasant]

Skip has been removed to invoke test failure - awaiting Test update or core functionality update. @RolandPheasant If you still wish to commit this prior to the investigation or update then we should add the skip back in, the test passes on a 2 in 10 basis i.e. its random

There's nothing wrong with the code, and nothing that any user has ever complained about in almost 10 years. The issue I think is purely down to mixing paradigms, and making tests work. Parallel.for sucks, but seemed a good idea at the time. Possibly in the future I'll change it to use pure Rx.

I am happy for the test to be skipped.

[RolandPheasant]

Running the same test on Main doesn't produce the same issue, so perhaps there is a merge issue somewhere.

In which case, maybe my above comment is complete rubbish

[ChrisPulman]

Running the same test on Main doesn't produce the same issue, so perhaps there is a merge issue somewhere.

In which case, maybe my above comment is complete rubbish

No problem, I think there must be something in the auto merge that happened, it's 05:43 here I better go back to sleep :)
If @JakenVeina doesn't manage to find the issue before tomorrow evening, I will try to see what went wrong, I return to UK on Sunday so will be in the Air for 12 hours.

[RolandPheasant]

@ChrisPulman thanks for helping and have a good journey. I am in the air too tomorrow.

[JakenVeina]

So the issue is not coming from #771, it's coming from the merge commit right after that, 3a39aac. Rolling back that commit eliminates the issue, with #771 still present on the branch. The issue is also not present on main, which is f492247 at the moment.

It looks like that merge pulled with it 11 other commits, so I'll see if I can narrow it down further.

It looks like this issue was present on the branch before #771 was merged. Commit 6395e7d seems to be the source, rolling back to just before that commit eliminates the issue, and pulling just that commit back in reintroduces it.

[JakenVeina]

Found it.

[ChrisPulman]

Found it.

Thank you very much @JakenVeina

[github-actions]

This pull request has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs.