Mark method as used

[drewnoakes]

This change lets VS see the HasMultipleReplicas as actually used. Otherwise, the backing file gets an IDE0051 Member unused diagnostic.

Microsoft Reviewers: Open in CodeFlow

[adamint]

I'm very curious how HasMultipleReplicas="HasMultipleReplicas(context)" worked without the @... do you know?

[drewnoakes]

I don't know. Could just be an IDE issue.

@davidwengier do you know?

[davidwengier]

The only way I could see this change having an effect is if the compiler didn't emit anything when the @ isn't present, but a) that isn't the case and b) if it was, you could type anything in the attribute, whether it compiles or not, and I suspect someone would have complained about that before.

As far as I know the @ is optional, has no effect on the generated code and therefore shouldn't affect any IDE warnings. In fact, I just opened the file and viewed the generated code with and with the @ and I can't see any difference. I've no idea what could be going on really. I don't even think its a Roslyn issue because, as I said, there is no change in the generated code with or without it. Perhaps something to do with when Roslyn does/doesn't run analyzers, and your edit somehow made it re-evaluate what was going on? Or you somehow didn't have any generated code for that .razor file, and again the edit kick-started things?

Just opening Aspire.sln, and Resources.razor.cs, I don't see any IDE0051 warnings in my error list 🤷‍♂️

[adamint]

I also did not see any error. I approved on the basis of both being identical (and most of the other method calls in attribute values having an @ in the file), but we might want to file an issue with Roslyn.

[tlmii]

I'm not showing IDE0051 with the pages open, and my code lens references show the reference properly (the screenshot above shows zero). I wonder if

Perhaps something to do with when Roslyn does/doesn't run analyzers, and your edit somehow made it re-evaluate what was going on? Or you somehow didn't have any generated code for that .razor file, and again the edit kick-started things?

is the most likely thing here.

[JamesNK]

The rules around optional @ are confusing. I wish there was an analyzer that told you about unnecessary ats.

[davidwengier]

Logged dotnet/razor#9740

[drewnoakes]

This no longer repros for me.