Add UseCorrectParametersKind rule #2149
Conversation
* Consistent function parameters definition * Rule is disabled by default * Possible types of preferred function parameters are: "Inline", "ParamBlock"
Haimasker
requested review from
a team,
bergmeister,
michaeltlombardi and
sdwheeler
as code owners
|
@microsoft-github-policy-service agree |
|
@sdwheeler @michaeltlombardi @bergmeister Thank you in advance. |
bergmeister
left a comment
bergmeister
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for your contribution and sorry for late review. I added Andy as well as he is the main code owner.
The rule might be a bit controversial as for some folks there is no 'correct' kind, therefore I suggest to name rule UseConsistentParametersKind for consistency with other rule names
| | [UseConsistentIndentation](./UseConsistentIndentation.md) | Warning | No | Yes | | ||
| | [UseConsistentWhitespace](./UseConsistentWhitespace.md) | Warning | No | Yes | | ||
| | [UseCorrectCasing](./UseCorrectCasing.md) | Information | No | Yes | | ||
| | [UseCorrectParametersKind](./UseCorrectParametersKind.md) | Warning | No | Yes | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
please align the | with the other lines
|
|
||
| Rewrite function so it defines parameters as specified in the rule | ||
|
|
||
| ## Example |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think also adding an incorrect example would be useful
|
|
||
| ## Description | ||
|
|
||
| All functions should have same parameters definition kind specified in the rule. Either using inline parameters in function definition or using param() block inside function body. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would try to better highlight there are only 2 kinds and what the consequences are of mixing them (is it just optical or does one get a compile or runtime error?).
Also, just talking from personal preference: I mix them because if I just need a simple function with arguments that are small enough to fit in one line, then I like the inline option but the moment things get more complicated (e.g. adding attributes/types, which makes inline hard to read), I use param block. We can definitely add this rule as-is since people can enable it if they think it's useful but just wondering whether it would be useful to some folks to have an optional configuration that allows them to enforce using param block when certain criteria are met (e.g. number of params, presence of attributes, etc.)
2 participants
Consistent function parameters definition
Rule is disabled by default
Possible types of preferred function parameters are: "Inline", "ParamBlock"
PR Summary
This PSScriptAnalyzer rule enforces uniform parameter definitions ("Inline" or "ParamBlock") across functions, improving code readability and maintainability.
Key Benefits:
PR Checklist
.cs,.ps1and.psm1files have the correct copyright headerWIP:to the beginning of the title and remove the prefix when the PR is ready.