Ruc on type analyzer part 1 #2330

tlakollo · 2021-10-26T02:03:36Z

Add logic to check some of the Ruc on type analysis warnings
Change field and event signature to match analyzer and linker to a single signature mode
Add class as a diagnostic target

Scenarios of Ruc on type that are not addressed by this PR:
Dealing with interfaces with RUC and having a class implementing it
DAM interaction with RUC
Reflection patterns, some of the tests work because they use typeof() but in general, they are not supported

Customer Impact

Analyzer now reports more warnings due to presence of RequiresUnreferencedCode on types. The warnings would otherwise be only generated by the trimmer during publish.
Small improvements to warning messages in the trimmer.

Testing

Added targeted tests

Risk

Low for analyzer as this only adds handling on new cases. Very low from trimmer since it only modifies warning messages.

tlakollo · 2021-10-26T02:05:55Z

src/linker/Linker/MethodReferenceExtensions.cs

+				string name = methodDefinition.SemanticsAttributes switch {
+					MethodSemanticsAttributes.AddOn => string.Concat(methodDefinition.Name.AsSpan (4), ".add"),
+					MethodSemanticsAttributes.RemoveOn => string.Concat (methodDefinition.Name.AsSpan (7), ".remove"),
+					MethodSemanticsAttributes.Fire => string.Concat (methodDefinition.Name.AsSpan (6), ".raise"),


I'm not 100% sure if the AsSpan should be 6 (for raise) or 5 (for fire) but seems like documentation mentions more raise than fire

src/ILLink.RoslynAnalyzer/RequiresAnalyzerBase.cs

agocke · 2021-10-27T18:07:35Z

Can you rebase this on release/6.0.2xx?

Add flag to check if methodSymbol is contructor

Fix issue where attributes ProducedBy.Trimmer/ProducedBy.All are skiped if they are surrounded by ProducedBy.Analyzer attributes

Delete the diagnostic target class and just warn if the class has the attribute on the class Add support for event raise usage in the analyzer Rebase to 6.0.2xx

agocke

I think this would be cleaner if you defined a notion of "semantically has RequiresAttribute", like the following:

		// TODO: Consider sharing method with linker
		/// <summary>
		/// True if the source of a call is considered to be annotated with the Requires... attribute
		/// </summary>
		protected static bool CallerHasRequiresAttribute(ISymbol member)
		{
			if (member.HasAttribute(RequiresAttributeName) ||
				member.ContainingType.HasAttribute(RequiresAttributeName))
			{
				return true;
			}
							
			// Check also for RequiresAttribute in the associated symbol
			if (containingSymbol is IMethodSymbol { AssociatedSymbol: {} associated } && associated.HasAttribute (RequiresAttributeName))
				return true;

			return false;
		}

		// TODO: Consider sharing method with linker
		/// <summary>
		/// True if the target of a call is considered to be annotated with the Requires... attribute
		/// </summary>
		protected static bool TargetHasRequiresAttribute(ISymbol member, [NotNullWhen (returnValue: true)] out AttributeData? requiresAttribute)
		{
			if (TryGetRequiresAttribute(member, out requiresAttribute))
			{
				return true;
			}
			
			// Also check the containing type
			if ((member.IsStatic && !member.IsStaticConstructor ())
			{
				return TryGetRequiresAttribute(member.ContainingType, out requiresAttribute);
			}

			requiresAttribute = null;
			return false;
		}

src/ILLink.RoslynAnalyzer/RequiresAnalyzerBase.cs

sbomer · 2021-10-27T21:09:16Z

I agree with @agocke's suggestion - and I think they should match DoesMethodRequireUnreferencedCode/IsMethodInRequiresUnreferencedCodeScope in the linker.

Fix event test OnEventMethod.EventToTestRemove and OnEventMethod.EventToTestAdd

tlakollo · 2021-10-28T05:06:52Z

src/ILLink.RoslynAnalyzer/RequiresAnalyzerBase.cs

+					// If the annotated member is an event accessor, we warn on the event to match the linker behavior.
+					if (member is IMethodSymbol eventAccessorMethod && eventAccessorMethod.AssociatedSymbol is IEventSymbol eventSymbol) {
+						member = eventAccessorMethod.ContainingSymbol;
+						operationContext.ReportDiagnostic (Diagnostic.Create (RequiresDiagnosticRule,
+							eventSymbol.Locations[0], eventAccessorMethod.GetDisplayName (), GetMessageFromAttribute (requiresAttribute), GetUrlFromAttribute (requiresAttribute)));
+						return;


After fixing the event test that wasn't exercising calling the annotated add and remove event I realized that the linker warns on the event always (I think wrongfully) and on the caller if it's using an event accessor so I think it's better if I delete this logic and just let the analyzer warn on the caller when tries to use the event accesor.

End up deleting this logic

src/ILLink.RoslynAnalyzer/RequiresAnalyzerBase.cs

… RucOnTypeAnalayzer

…ler of the event accessor

agocke · 2021-10-29T00:19:51Z

test/Mono.Linker.Tests.Cases/RequiresCapability/RequiresCapability.cs

@@ -744,24 +744,26 @@ public static void Test ()

 		class OnEventMethod
 		{
-			[ExpectedWarning ("IL2026", "--EventToTestRemove.remove--")]
+			[ExpectedWarning ("IL2026", "--EventToTestRemove.remove--", ProducedBy = ProducedBy.Trimmer)]


What's going on here?

There was a special code handling to print the warnings on the event instead of the caller that used the event accessor. I realized that the test OnEventMethod was wrong.
EventToTestRemove had the Requires attribute in its remove accessor, but it was adding an event

EventToTestRemove += (sender, e) => { };

Therefore there was no warning in the caller because only the adding was being called. After realizing that Linker prints in both the caller if an accessor with Requires is used and on the event unconditionally (which I believe is a bug) I decided to remove the special casing in the analyzer.

This expected warning is in the event, so it's no longer produced by the analyzer and instead there are expected warnings in the method that calls the event accessors

[ExpectedWarning ("IL2026", "--EventToTestRemove.remove--")] [ExpectedWarning ("IL2026", "--EventToTestAdd.add--")] public static void Test () { EventToTestRemove -= (sender, e) => { }; EventToTestAdd += (sender, e) => { }; }

There was a special code handling to print the warnings on the event instead of the caller that used the event accessor.

This doesn't really make sense to me. Is it possible there's a bug? Is there a comment on the linker side that explains why this is different?

Yes, there is this issue in the linker
https://github.com/mono/linker/issues/2218

agocke · 2021-10-29T00:22:51Z

test/Mono.Linker.Tests.Cases/RequiresCapability/RequiresCapability.cs

@@ -1367,20 +1370,22 @@ static void TestDAMAccess ()
 					typeof (DerivedWithRequires).RequiresPublicFields ();
 				}

-				[ExpectedWarning ("IL2026", "WithRequires.StaticField", ProducedBy = ProducedBy.Trimmer)]
+				[ExpectedWarning ("IL2026", "WithRequires.StaticField")]
+				// Analyzer does not recognize the binding flags


Can we note the remaining pieces that won't be finished in this PR?

You mean like adding:

// This attribute doesn't work because the analyzer still doesn't understand the binding flags // [ExpectedWarning ("IL2026", "WithRequires.PrivateField", ProducedBy = ProducedBy.Analyzer)]

// This test needs support for DAM Analyzer // [ExpectedWarning ("IL2026", "SomeDAMTest", ProducedBy = ProducedBy.Analyzer)]

// This test uses interfaces and inheritance which is still not supported by the analyzer // [ExpectedWarning ("IL2026, "SomeInterfaceTest", ProducedBy = ProducedBy.Analyzer)]

I meant in the PR summary, just listing the stuff that doesn't work yet

agocke

LGTM thanks!

Add logic to check some of the Ruc on type analysis warnings Change field and event signature to match analyzer and linker to a single signature mode Add class as a diagnostic target Fix issue where attributes ProducedBy.Trimmer/ProducedBy.All are skipped if they are surrounded by ProducedBy.Analyzer attributes Bring IsConstructor and IsStaticConstructor from Roslyn source Remove special case for printing warnings in the event instead of the caller of the event accessor Scenarios of Ruc on type that are not addressed by this PR: Dealing with interfaces with RUC and having a class implementing it DAM interaction with RUC Reflection patterns, some of the tests work because they use typeof() but in general, they are not supported Commit migrated from dotnet/linker@c702d03

tlakollo self-assigned this Oct 26, 2021

tlakollo commented Oct 26, 2021

View reviewed changes

tlakollo requested review from sbomer, vitek-karas and agocke October 26, 2021 02:34

tlakollo marked this pull request as ready for review October 26, 2021 02:49

tlakollo requested a review from marek-safar as a code owner October 26, 2021 02:49

agocke reviewed Oct 26, 2021

View reviewed changes

src/ILLink.RoslynAnalyzer/RequiresAnalyzerBase.cs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

src/ILLink.RoslynAnalyzer/RequiresAnalyzerBase.cs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

vitek-karas reviewed Oct 26, 2021

View reviewed changes

src/ILLink.RoslynAnalyzer/RequiresAnalyzerBase.cs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

tlakollo added 5 commits October 27, 2021 11:46

First Ruc on type tests

fdef59a

Change field and event signature to match linker and analyzer

346a095

Add flag to check if methodSymbol is contructor

Enable concurrent ececution

bcd7061

Lint

93430fa

Fix issue where attributes ProducedBy.Trimmer/ProducedBy.All are skiped if they are surrounded by ProducedBy.Analyzer attributes

Bring IsContructor Method from roslyn source

a102cb8

Delete the diagnostic target class and just warn if the class has the attribute on the class Add support for event raise usage in the analyzer Rebase to 6.0.2xx

tlakollo force-pushed the RucOnTypeAnalayzer branch from ce49436 to a102cb8 Compare October 27, 2021 18:54

tlakollo changed the base branch from main to release/6.0.2xx October 27, 2021 18:58

agocke reviewed Oct 27, 2021

View reviewed changes

src/ILLink.RoslynAnalyzer/RequiresAnalyzerBase.cs Show resolved Hide resolved

PR feedback

a699c28

Fix event test OnEventMethod.EventToTestRemove and OnEventMethod.EventToTestAdd

tlakollo commented Oct 28, 2021

View reviewed changes

Delete test coverage files and additional dummy code

f66d64f

agocke reviewed Oct 28, 2021

View reviewed changes

src/ILLink.RoslynAnalyzer/RequiresAnalyzerBase.cs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

src/ILLink.RoslynAnalyzer/RequiresAnalyzerBase.cs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

tlakollo added 3 commits October 28, 2021 14:25

Merge branch 'release/6.0.2xx' of https://github.com/mono/linker into…

c54c87e

… RucOnTypeAnalayzer

PR Feedback

7b85f73

Remove special case for printing warnings in event instead of the cal…

58b16d2

…ler of the event accessor

tlakollo requested a review from agocke October 28, 2021 23:29

agocke reviewed Oct 29, 2021

View reviewed changes

agocke approved these changes Oct 29, 2021

View reviewed changes

tlakollo merged commit c702d03 into dotnet:release/6.0.2xx Oct 29, 2021

tlakollo deleted the RucOnTypeAnalayzer branch October 29, 2021 19:20

tlakollo mentioned this pull request Mar 18, 2022

Allow RequiresUnreferencedCode on classes and structs #1742

Closed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Ruc on type analyzer part 1 #2330

Ruc on type analyzer part 1 #2330

tlakollo commented Oct 26, 2021 •

edited by vitek-karas

Loading

tlakollo Oct 26, 2021

agocke commented Oct 27, 2021

agocke left a comment

sbomer commented Oct 27, 2021

tlakollo Oct 28, 2021 •

edited

Loading

tlakollo Oct 28, 2021

agocke Oct 29, 2021

tlakollo Oct 29, 2021

agocke Oct 29, 2021

tlakollo Oct 29, 2021

agocke Oct 29, 2021

tlakollo Oct 29, 2021

agocke Oct 29, 2021

agocke left a comment

Ruc on type analyzer part 1 #2330

Ruc on type analyzer part 1 #2330

Conversation

tlakollo commented Oct 26, 2021 • edited by vitek-karas Loading

Customer Impact

Testing

Risk

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

agocke commented Oct 27, 2021

agocke left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

sbomer commented Oct 27, 2021

tlakollo Oct 28, 2021 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

agocke left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

tlakollo commented Oct 26, 2021 •

edited by vitek-karas

Loading

tlakollo Oct 28, 2021 •

edited

Loading