I am having trouble with FxCop warning CA1006, Microsoft.Design "DoNotNestGenericTypesInMemberSignatures". Specifically, I am designing a ReportCollection<T>
class that inherits from ReadOnlyCollection<Report<T>>
, and its public
constructor takes an IList<Report<T>>
as a parameter.
The suggestion for fixing this warning is not very useful:
"To fix a violation of this rule, change the design to remove the nested type argument." There are two ways I can see so far to change the design as suggested:
- Make the constructor
internal
. This doesn't work in my case. The constructor must bepublic
because this collection class needs to be instantiable by code outside the assembly. - Make the constructor take a
Report<T>[]
instead of anIList<Report<T>>
. This is sub-optimal because external code should have the flexibility of using dynamically-sized data structures likeList<T>
instead of fixed-size arrays.
At this point, I have given up and suppressed this warning. Is there a better solution?
I would take FxCop's warnings as if they were suggestions from an extremely anal-retentive coworker. It's perfectly ok to ignore (suppress) some of the things it suggests.
I agree that you can ignore the CA1006 warning in the case of
Also you can simplify your code by using delegates and avoid the CA1006:
I agree, another good time to ignore this rule is when you need to say:
of course you could use the non-generic IEnumerable, but then any type can be used as long as it implements IEnumerable (non-generic). The purpose of generics (in part) is to restrict the types that are permisable to a given set of types.
I think this rule is very stupid. only need it if you have multiple generic types nested. one layer of nesting is more than safe.
BTW, I think a lot of the LINQ Functions nest generic types as well, so if MS does it, we can too :)