/Community

Here is a suggestion for helping developers create custom rules.

There are several rules that are about 99% usable for with the only exception that they dont have an exclude list options.  There are always exclusions to any rule.  I have created a few custom rules based on existing rules to include an exclusion list, but after doing so several times using the reflector tool and cut and paste and debugging it came to me that it would be a great benifit to us if we could select a rule and through a button or menu have it generate the code file(s)/class with all the existing code for the rule as it exists.  This way all I have to do is go in and add the changes to adapt the rule to my liking.

Brian

This is very interesting suggestion. Let me think about it. It is definitelly going on the enhancements list, I just need to see how this can be done.

It would be helpful to know examples of what rules you implemented exclude lists for.

Also, perhaps, we can help you with alternative to the exclusion list solution is we know what you are doing ...

Thanks!

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

Thank you, Brian.

We don't take this for criticism (although there is nothing wrong in being criticized) but rather good valuable feedback.

With CodeIt.Right we don't want to force neither Microsoft's nor our own vision of .NET standards and best practices. Instead, we have build the tool to be as flexible as possible to fit into every team's own guidelines.Thus the extensibility of the product - "define your own standards, not somebody else's"

This is why your feedback is very helpful to us. Please keep it coming. We will make sure the product works for all users by perfecting it.

Thanks!