Great,
It may just be an option in the wizard that runs for creating a rule template. It would be nice to ahve a few extra steps to guide you on what kind of rule we are creating.
Things like an exclusion list, must implement, and type name are a few that I would like to have as part of the options when creating the template.
The first one I extended to include an exclusion list is a Naming rule for enforcing that Parameters in a sub or function declaration be Pascal cased.
Out of the box this works fine but will flag every designer generated event handler since the IDE declares the two parameters as sender and e.
So in a large project we had a lot of these. I extended that rule to have an exclusion list so that you can provide a comma separated list of names to ignore.
I took the code from the acronym rule for the exclusion list and it works great.
We are reviewing our standards for prefix and suffix rules and I see the need for certain exclusions for them as well, but since we have not decided on the final rules I am waiting on that one.
The built in rules for use or aviod prefix and suffix should work, but again these may need an exclusion list for us.
Bottom line is that from what I have seen the ability to extend the rules that your product has is the main selling point. It is what sets your product apart from the others that I have tried and making it easier for us to use is a huge benefit. We want the tool to save us time, no take our time. Dont take this as a criticism, I like what you have here, but once I found out that your product was extensible I immediately started to look at ways to create rules to fit our standards instead of looking for ways to make our rules fit the tool. This is a good thing, I just need to be able to do it quicker, after all time is money :)
Thanks
Brian