Upgrade StyleCopAnalyzers to v1.2.0-beta.312

[xtqqczze]

https://github.com/DotNetAnalyzers/StyleCopAnalyzers/releases/tag/1.2.0-beta.312

Follow-up to #45644.

[Dotnet-GitSync-Bot]

I couldn't figure out the best area label to add to this PR. If you have write-permissions please help me learn by adding exactly one area label.

[xtqqczze]

Can we get dependabot to do this for new releases?

[danmoseley]

@ViktorHofer have we considered dependabot or do we prefer more control?

[stephentoub]

More control, e.g. we want to be explicit about what rules are enabled, ensure our config file is explicit and complete, etc. And we don't need to update these every day / every time there's a stylecop update. Also, keep in mind this is an external piece of code that's run on everyone's machines.

[ViktorHofer]

From my point of view, I'm not against using dependabot as it would nicely cover cases that aren't handled by darc.

[xtqqczze]

@danmosemsft Can we merge this?

[sharwell]

Before merging, can someone check if this repository uses any of the following rules?

• SA1500
• SA1502
• SA1508

If so, you'll be affected by DotNetAnalyzers/StyleCopAnalyzers#3272 if you use the short syntax for record types (omitting {}). The fix is merged but not yet published.

[ViktorHofer]

Before merging, can someone check if this repository uses any of the following rules?

Those rules are currently disabled in both our ruleset files

runtime/eng/CodeAnalysis.ruleset

Lines 360 to 368 in 4bc3232

	<Rule Id="SA1500" Action="None" /> <!-- Braces for multi-line statements should not share line -->
	<Rule Id="SA1501" Action="None" /> <!-- Statement should not be on a single line -->
	<Rule Id="SA1502" Action="None" /> <!-- Element should not be on a single line -->
	<Rule Id="SA1503" Action="None" /> <!-- Braces should not be omitted -->
	<Rule Id="SA1504" Action="None" /> <!-- All accessors should be single-line or multi-line -->
	<Rule Id="SA1505" Action="None" /> <!-- An opening brace should not be followed by a blank line -->
	<Rule Id="SA1506" Action="None" /> <!-- Element documentation headers should not be followed by blank line -->
	<Rule Id="SA1507" Action="None" /> <!-- Code should not contain multiple blank lines in a row -->
	<Rule Id="SA1508" Action="None" /> <!-- A closing brace should not be preceded by a blank line -->

and

runtime/eng/CodeAnalysis.test.ruleset

Lines 359 to 367 in 4bc3232

	<Rule Id="SA1500" Action="None" /> <!-- Braces for multi-line statements should not share line -->
	<Rule Id="SA1501" Action="None" /> <!-- Statement should not be on a single line -->
	<Rule Id="SA1502" Action="None" /> <!-- Element should not be on a single line -->
	<Rule Id="SA1503" Action="None" /> <!-- Braces should not be omitted -->
	<Rule Id="SA1504" Action="None" /> <!-- All accessors should be single-line or multi-line -->
	<Rule Id="SA1505" Action="None" /> <!-- An opening brace should not be followed by a blank line -->
	<Rule Id="SA1506" Action="None" /> <!-- Element documentation headers should not be followed by blank line -->
	<Rule Id="SA1507" Action="None" /> <!-- Code should not contain multiple blank lines in a row -->
	<Rule Id="SA1508" Action="None" /> <!-- A closing brace should not be preceded by a blank line -->

.

[danmoseley]

I don't object to merging per se but why the update? Why would we not wait for the next stable release, unless we hit a blocking bug?

[sharwell]

I don't object to merging per se but why the update?

There are no changes from 1.2.0-beta.304 to 1.2.0-beta.312 that seem particularly interesting for this repository. The items of note are support for records without a block body, on the condition that you aren't using the three specific rules I pointed out above.

Why would we not wait for the next stable release ...

You'll be waiting a long time. Honestly it's not a problem unless you actually are seeing a problem.

... unless we hit a blocking bug?

The main reasons to update are:

1. Improved performance (this is why 1.2.0-beta.304 was so beneficial; already adopted)
2. Improved support for newer language versions (some of the 1.2.0 releases were merged for this)

[danmoseley]

Thanks for that info. Given there's probably no benefit to the repo, I'm going to close this. We can consider picking up a new one when we would benefit from improved perf, a bug fix, new feature etc.

@xtqqczze thanks for offering the PR though, since it helps ensure that the version wouldn't cause a regression in this repo. No harm in doing that from time to time, but it could be a draft (CI still runs)