On Sun, 2008-12-21 at 02:34 -0800, Lex Li - MSFT wrote:
> Well, it is cool. Will it be part of 2.2 release not later?

I should have time to make it available in 2.2 final.

Thanks for the report!
Sebastien

> Regards,
> 
> Lex
> 
> On Dec 21, 5:43 pm, Letiemble <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > This issue has been fixed in SVN HEAD. 
> > Seehttp://groups.google.com/group/gendarme/browse_thread/thread/d6feab1c...
> > for more details.
> >
> > Regards, Laurent Etiemble.
> >
> > On Dec 21, 9:15 am, Lex Li - MSFT <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > I got such a report on #SNMP source code.
> >
> > > 21. ProtectCallToEventDelegatesRule
> >
> > > Problem: The use of the event does not seems protected properly
> > > against NullReferenceException and/or race conditions.
> > > Details [Severity: High, Confidence: Normal]
> > > * Target: System.Void
> > > Lextm.SharpSnmpLib.Manager::TrapListener_InformRequestReceived
> > > (System.Object,Lextm.SharpSnmpLib.InformRequestReceivedEventArgs)
> > > * Variable 'handler' does not seems to be checked against null.
> >
> > > Solution: Fix the event use to make sure it wont be null nor be
> > > susceptible to a race condition.
> > > More info available 
> > > at:http://www.mono-project.com/Gendarme.Rules.Concurrency#ProtectCallToE...
> >
> > > But it is a false alarm in my opinion because I did check against null
> > > except I used if (null != handler). If I changed it back to if
> > > (handler != null) then this warning would disappear. Hope Gendarme can
> > > support (null != handler) some day as some books on C# use such a
> > > style. We don't want to puzzle some beginners by this rule, do we?
> > 


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Gendarme" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/gendarme?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to