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
3 results found
-
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 -
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 >= 71 vote -
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 votewith the technical debt support of v2017 that let’s assign a cost-to-fix and a severity estimation for each issue
- Don't see your idea?