Consider the following code, which provokes CA2104: Do not declare read only mutable reference types.
public class Test
{
// This provokes CA2104: "Do not declare read only mutable reference types".
protected readonly ImmutableClass ImmutableMember;
}
public class ImmutableClass
{
}
Does anyone know of a way to mark a class as immutable in a way that would suppress warning CA2104?
I tried decorating MutableClass
with [ImmutableObject(true)]
with no hope of success (since that attribute is pretty clearly for the Form Editor to use), and sure enough it doesn't work.
I assume that Code Analysis is using a list of known immutable types when determining whether to emit CA2104, so we can't use the same approach.
I guess that even if you could mark a class as immutable, there'd be no way for the compiler to actually check if it was true, but at least it could be a useful indicator.
Anyway, are there any attributes I'm overlooking? If not, suppression will have to do.
It seems that there is no alternative way to do this at the moment.
I did find an interesting blog from Joe Duffy (author of "Concurrent Programming On Windows") about this kind of thing.
He starts off with "Imagine we had an ImmutableAttribute."... :)
It's quite interesting - he went to the trouble of writing some new FxCop rules to do some analysis of types attributed as immutable.
A protected readonly
field isn't really that clear. As protected
, you might expect that a derived class can initialize the field:
public class Test
{
protected readonly ImmutableClass ImmutableMember;
}
public class SpecialTest : Test
{
public SpecialTest() { ImmutableMember = new ImmutableClass; }
}
But, that's not the case--you will get a compile error (CS0191).
I don't know the exact impetus behind CA2104, but you can get the same result without readonly via:
public class Test
{
protected ImmutableClass ImmutableMember {get; private set;}
public Test()
:this(new ImmutableClasse())
{
}
public Test(ImmutableClass immutableClass)
{
ImmutableMember = new ImmutableClasse();
}
}
and avoid the CA2104.
w.r.t. to the comments (and to future readers), as you say you could use a backing field to get the read-only and provide a protected getter to get at it in derived classes:
public class Test
{
private readonly ImmutableClass immutableMember;
protected ImmutableClass ImmutableMember { get { return immutableMember; } }
public Test(ImmutableClass immutableMember)
{
this.immutableMember = immutableMember;
}
}
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With