Support NuGet based code analyzers

[ErikEJ]

fixes #569

This supports the "official" way to pack SQL analyzers.

• Docs update: Show package references
• Docs update: Mention netstandard2.1 requirement
• Docs update: Remove support for old way of adding rules TBD

For an example of an analyzer .csproj see this

Wonder if we should remove support for our current way to add analyzers? - I am tempted to.

Notice that the Test project has been updated to target netstandard2.1 in order for restore of the rule dll to work.

[ErikEJ]

Will also add docs update if we agree to merge this.

[ErikEJ]

@jmezach Thoughts on: Wonder if we should remove support for our current way to add analyzers? - I am tempted to.

[jmezach]

What do you mean exactly with our current way of adding analyzers?

[ErikEJ]

@jmezach I mean this part of the docs:

You can also bring your own rules. For an example of custom rules, see this repository.

To use custom rules, place the rule .dll files in a Rules folder in the project, and add them as Content items:

  <ItemGroup>
    <Content Include="Rules\My.Own.Rules.dll" />
  </ItemGroup>

[ErikEJ]

@jmezach In other words, I suggest we revert this PR: #533 (and update the docs of course)

[jmezach]

Yeah, I think that makes sense. We might want to explain how folks could create a NuGet package with their custom rules though.

[ErikEJ]

We might want to explain how folks could create a NuGet package with their custom rules though.

Yes, working on the docs now!

[ErikEJ]

@jmezach I have gotten concerned that we are now reducing the number of active rules from 70+ to 15 for a user coming from a previous version of the SDK.

Could we add a warning if no Analyzers are referenced during analysis? And give the warning a code, so it can be overriden?

[jmezach]

Yeah, I think that would make sense to do.

[ErikEJ]

[jmezach]

LGTM :)

[ErikEJ]

@jmezach PR updated with the warning and some more logging info

[ErikEJ]

@jmezach any thing else you would like me to address?

[jeffrosenberg]

LGTM, just left a few small corrections on the README

[ErikEJ]

@jeffrosenberg Thanks!

[ErikEJ]

@jmezach Wonder if I should update the docs in general with this?

<TargetFramework>netstandard2.1</TargetFramework>

[jmezach]

My apologies, I've been out sick for a couple of days, hence the radio silence.

@ErikEJ If targeting netstandard2.1 is a requirement for being able to reference the rules packages, then yes, maybe we should update the docs. It doesn't have a big impact anyway. We should probably also update the templates for that.

[ErikEJ]

@jmezach Glad that you are well again!

I have updated the readme, the templates were already updated

[jmezach]

Looks good overall, just a couple of tweaks I think

[ErikEJ]

@jmezach If we default to having Code Analysis always on, I assume we need to update the readme as well?

[ErikEJ]

@jmezach But maybe I misunderstood your review comment?

[ErikEJ]

Thanks @jmezach and @jeffrosenberg

I will also update my blog post here, when 2.9.0 is released:

https://erikej.github.io/dacfx/codeanalysis/sqlserver/2024/04/02/dacfx-codeanalysis.html

[ErikEJ]

@jmezach Can you assist with a release of 2.9.0 🙏 - TIA

[jmezach]

Release pipeline should be running now

[jmezach]

2.9.0 is up on NuGet

[jmezach]

Do you want to write release notes for this?

[ErikEJ]

I can do that yes