当密封的覆盖方法是通用的时，为什么警告CA2214无法解决？ [英] Why is warning CA2214 not resolved when a sealed override method is generic?

问题描述

给出以下类层次结构：

class Base
{
    protected virtual void Do(int value)
    {
    }
}

class Derived1 : Base
{
    sealed protected override void Do(int value)
    {
        base.Do(value);
    }
}

class Derived2 : Derived1
{
    public Derived2()
    {
        Do(999);
    }
}

...代码分析警告 CA2214 的解决方法是，只需添加 sealed 关键字即可到 Derived1.Do（）。到目前为止，一切都很好。

... the code analysis warning CA2214 is resolved by simply adding the sealed keyword to Derived1.Do(). So far, so good.

现在让我们将 Do（）泛型化：

class Base
{
    protected virtual void Do<T>(T value)
    {
    }
}

class Derived1 : Base
{
    sealed protected override void Do<T>(T value)
    {
        base.Do(value);
    }
}

class Derived2 : Derived1
{
    public Derived2()
    {
        Do(999);
    }
}

CA2214警告返回。为什么？

The CA2214 warning returns. Why?

警告的描述引用了以下调用堆栈以供查看：

The description of the warning cites the following call stack to review:

Derived2..ctor()
Base.Do<T>(T):Void

...即使断点位于 Derived1.Do（）恰好被击中。

...even though a breakpoint on Derived1.Do() is hit just fine.

注意：.NET 4.5和4.6都是这种情况

Note: this is the case with both .NET 4.5 and 4.6

推荐答案

规则实现未实现用于识别具有通用参数的方法调用的参数匹配逻辑。与有意从密封解决方案中排除通用方法相反，这很可能是规则实施中的缺陷。您可能需要考虑将违规作为误报抑制。但是，这种抑制将导致该方法将来可能无法启封，因此YMMV ...

The rule implementation does not implement parameter matching logic that recognizes invocations of methods with generic parameters. This is most likely a flaw in the rule implementation, as opposed to an intentional exclusion of generic methods from the sealing solution. You may want to consider suppressing the violation as a false positive. However, that suppression would cause a potential future unsealing of the method to go undetected, so YMMV...

这篇关于当密封的覆盖方法是通用的时，为什么警告CA2214无法解决？的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！