New constant expected analyzer

[wzchua]

Resolves dotnet/runtime#33771
This is still a WIP and I'm using CA1860 and CA1861 as placeholder.
I believe the logic covers most of the general cases.

It is still not fully clear to me the rules for applying this attribute to a generic parameter.
I have added logic to handle some of it but not sure if this is how the team would like them.

• Add more tests

@buyaa-n @tannergooding

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #5766 (266fba8) into main (5182a8a) will increase coverage by 0.00%.
The diff coverage is 98.15%.

❗ Current head 266fba8 differs from pull request most recent head ca89072. Consider uploading reports for the commit ca89072 to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##             main    #5766     +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage   96.04%   96.05%             
=========================================
  Files        1360     1364      +4     
  Lines      312225   313686   +1461     
  Branches    10047    10125     +78     
=========================================
+ Hits       299890   301324   +1434     
- Misses       9928     9940     +12     
- Partials     2407     2422     +15     

[deeprobin]

@wzchua Are you still working on this?

[wzchua]

Yea, it is effectively done but I'm sure I'm still missing something.

Also, I'm not sure if the team wants the vb analyzer

[deeprobin]

Can you please check if the analyzer works also on VB?

dotnet/runtime#33771 (comment)
And we need some VB Tests and then its imo ready to review

[wzchua]

It won't work, it depends on language specific syntax since there is no IOperation for attribute

[wzchua]

I'll do a rebase and mark it for review later in the day

[wzchua]

The test is still missing a reference assembly with the attribute

[deeprobin]

LGTM

[tannergooding]

This isn't something I have the relevant expertise to review. It only impacts some of the APIs in my area as things that might use the analyzer.

CC> @buyaa-n

[wzchua]

@tannergooding. From the test, you can view the behaviour of the analyzer. Let me know if the behaviour does not match what is expected.

[buyaa-n]

Thanks @wzchua, looks a few comments still not addressed yet, otherwise looks good

[wzchua]

I have resolved the remaining comments

[buyaa-n]

LGTM, thanks for your contribution @wzchua, I would simplify the perf test a bit

[buyaa-n]

FYI: @mavasani @jmarolf it is safe to merge this analyzer in 7.0 as it would not cause any warnings because the ConstantExpected attribute is not yet applied to any APIs in runtime. And we have no plan to apply any attribute within 7.0. If its OK with you and have you have done reviewing we can merge the analyzer

[tannergooding]

What's the status of this and is it ready to merge?

[buyaa-n]

What's the status of this and is it ready to merge?

This is ready (except it got new merge conflicts), it can be merged into 7.0 if @jmarolf @mavasani OK with merging (It would not cause any warning as no any API attributed with ConstantExpectedAttribute in 7.0). Else I will merge it when the main branch will become for 8.0