Skip to content

NDepend User Voice

Welcome to the NDepend User Voice page. Let us know what you would like to see in future versions of NDepend. This site is for suggestions and ideas. If you need to report a bug, please send us an email at support@ndepend.com

We look forward to hearing from you!

Thanks – Patrick Smacchia
NDepend Team

NDepend Users Voice

You've used all your votes and won't be able to post a new idea, but you can still search and comment on existing ideas.

There are two ways to get more votes:

  • When an admin closes an idea you've voted on, you'll get your votes back from that idea.
  • You can remove your votes from an open idea you support.
  • To see ideas you have already voted on, select the "My feedback" filter and select "My open ideas".
(thinking…)

Enter your idea and we'll search to see if someone has already suggested it.

If a similar idea already exists, you can support and comment on it.

If it doesn't exist, you can post your idea so others can support it.

Enter your idea and we'll search to see if someone has already suggested it.

  • Hot ideas
  • Top ideas
  • New ideas
  • My feedback

3 results found

  1. Ignore "Avoid having different types with same name" rule for extension classes

    For static classes that only contain extension methods for a particular type, often the class name is in the format of "[Type]Extensions". These classes are most often transparent to the consuming code, and so the reasoning behind the critical rule "Avoid having different types with same name" need not apply, and certainly should not be critical.

    "Such practice leads confusion and also naming collision in source files that use different types with same name."

    1 vote
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Close
    Close
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    completed  ·  1 comment  ·  Code Rule and Query  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Close
    Close

  2. Description and Code for Avoid methods with too many parameters Do Not Match

    The description of rule Avoid methods with too many parameters says "This rule matches methods with more than 8 parameters.". The source code finds all methods with greater than 6 parameters.

    warnif count > 0 from m in JustMyCode.Methods where
    m.NbParameters >= 7

    1 vote
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Close
    Close
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    completed  ·  1 comment  ·  Code Rule and Query  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Close
    Close

  3. Add importance weighting to rules for more robust "fails"

    Instead of a binary critical or not critical flag for rules, it would be nice to have a weighting system for rules (e.g. "each violation of this rule is worth 3, but each violation of this important rule is worth 8").
    Then perhaps we could assign a threshold for whether our analysis failed based on point totals, or some percentage formula.

    1 vote
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Close
    Close
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    2 comments  ·  Code Rule and Query  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Close
    Close
  • Don't see your idea?

NDepend User Voice

Categories

Feedback and Knowledge Base

(thinking…)