Collection expressions (IDE0300)

[glen-84]

Summary of the changes (Less than 80 chars)

• Updated code triggering IDE0300 to use collection expressions.

This handles all but 2 cases of IDE0300. The handled cases should be non-controversial (?). The remaining 2 cases are more subjective – do you have a preference for keeping the explicit types in the examples below?

-       _handlers = new ITypeRegistrarHandler[]
+       _handlers =
-       {
+       [
            new ExtendedTypeReferenceHandler(context.TypeInspector),
            new SchemaTypeReferenceHandler(),
            new SyntaxTypeReferenceHandler(context.TypeInspector),
            new FactoryTypeReferenceHandler(context),
            new DependantFactoryTypeReferenceHandler(context),
            new ExtendedTypeDirectiveReferenceHandler(context.TypeInspector)
-       };
+       ];

    public OffsetDateTimeType() : this(OffsetDateTimePattern.ExtendedIso)
    {
        // Backwards compatibility with the original code's behavior
        _serializationPattern = OffsetDateTimePattern.GeneralIso;
-       _allowedPatterns = new IPattern<OffsetDateTime>[] { OffsetDateTimePattern.ExtendedIso };
+       _allowedPatterns = [OffsetDateTimePattern.ExtendedIso];
    }

The pros of updating them:

• Terser code.
• Analyzer IDE0300 can be fully enforced without exceptions.

The cons:

• Some developers may consider the explicit types to be more readable/understandable.

Since I could only find 2 examples within the entire codebase, it might make sense to just update these as well, and then enable the analyzer (and consider also using EnforceCodeStyleInBuild).

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: 12 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (8bf1558) 70.16% compared to head (b9212c6) 70.20%.
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

❗ Current head b9212c6 differs from pull request most recent head b5861c9. Consider uploading reports for the commit b5861c9 to get more accurate results

Files	Patch %	Lines
...ore/src/Transport.Http/DefaultGraphQLHttpClient.cs	73.68%	5 Missing ⚠️
...tCore/Extensions/EndpointRouteBuilderExtensions.cs	84.21%	3 Missing ⚠️
...ons/HotChocolateAuthorizeRequestExecutorBuilder.cs	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️
...rc/AspNetCore/Extensions/HttpResponseExtensions.cs	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️
...rc/AspNetCore/Subscriptions/WebSocketConnection.cs	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️
...re/src/Abstractions/GraphQLNonNullTypeAttribute.cs	50.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #6726      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   70.16%   70.20%   +0.04%     
==========================================
  Files        2485     2485              
  Lines      125521   125521              
==========================================
+ Hits        88067    88118      +51     
+ Misses      37454    37403      -51     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	70.20% <93.06%> (+0.04%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Kudos, no new issues were introduced!

0 New issues
0 Security Hotspots
No data about Coverage
No data about Duplication

See analysis details on SonarCloud

[glen-84]

Superseded by #6845.