SonarCloud is a static analysis tool. It runs on your codebase and points out where code can be written to “best practices”, possible bugs, and code coverage.

When my employer bought a SonarCloud licence, there was a large emphasis that they wanted existing errors fixed, and no errors in new code. I knew this would be a bad idea to emphasise because of the classic “you get what you measure”. If you tell people the goal is to not have errors, then they will do whatever they can to not have errors. The idea of a tool like SonarCloud is to improve code quality, but since the metric is a number, then the number becomes the goal rather than code quality. However, the aim should be to improve the quality of the code, optimised for readability, maintainability, scalability, and code coverage.

As more people began working with SonarCloud, we saw more changes with the title along the lines of “Fix Sonarcloud issues“.

Human Analysis

SonarCloud is just a static analysis tool, it can only spot problems and suggest pre-defined improvements. These improvements are not always in the best interest of the code base. You have to objectively ask yourself “Does the change I’m making make the code better or worse?” Before you can do that, you need to understand why Sonar thinks there is a problem with the code. Then you can decide if Sonar is right or not. Some of the rules are not applicable everywhere.

I have seen a number of changes where the code is actually made worse by the changes to satisfy Sonar.

Example 1: 7 Argument Limit

A constructor or method that contains loads of parameters/arguments can be a sign of bad design, and maybe some of the parameters can be grouped together inside an object. Once you reach 8 arguments, Sonar will flag this. A simple fix is just to create a class and throw in a couple of parameters in there. It then satisfies the rule but it doesn’t make logical sense unless the parameters are in fact related. Adding a new class when it is single use could just make the codebase more cluttered and seemingly more complicated. I would rather see a class with 8 values, than some complicated class with extra types in the way “Just because of Sonar”. Mark Seemann has a good blog post about Curbing code rot with thresholds.

Example 2: TryParse

Another example, I once wrote some code with the following:

var ok = int.TryParse(a, out var x) & int.TryParse(b, out var y);
//something with x and y

Sonar complained about the use of the bitwise & and it was confusing and suggested I use &&. However, if I did that then “y” wouldn’t always be defined because of the short-circuiting and the code wouldn’t compile. I was about to reject the Sonar issue as “Suggests code that doesn’t compile” and just keep my version.

Then I thought, “if Sonar cannot understand my code to make a decent suggestion, maybe other developers can’t either“. I was trying to be too clever with my code.

Instead I changed the code to:

var ok1 = int.TryParse(a, out var x);
var ok2 = int.TryParse(b, out var y);
var ok = ok1 && ok2;
//something with x and y

It wasn’t as terse as my original version, but it was certainly easier to read and understand, and Sonar didn’t have a problem with it any more either.

Example 3: Cyclomatic Complexity

When a method has loads of If statements, this creates loads of permutations that can be executed which means if you are aiming for true 100% test coverage, you have loads of tests to write. It can easily make the code hard to read and understand too. At a certain point, Sonar suggests breaking the methods into smaller methods. I have seen people take this extremely literally and you end up with a design that looks like

  SetPersonalDetailDifferences1(returnList);
  SetPersonalDetailDifferences2(region, returnList);

So there is no logical grouping for what goes in part 1 and part 2, it’s just that enough code gets placed in the first method then everything else in the second. Now the original single method is half the size with no logical reason other than to satisfy the Sonar rule.

Me (rhetorically)
Are these fields logically grouped or is this just to satisfy sonar?    
 
Brijesh
It is just to satisfy sonar

Example 4: Making The Code Worse

Nullable DateTime

DateTime always has to have a value. However, You can declare a nullable DateTime in C# by appending a question mark like DateTime?

The existing code was checking a standard DateTime for null, which can never happen.

if (startDate == null)
   throw new ArgumentNullException("startDate");

The Code Analysis report was correctly flagging this code as completely unnecessary. Instead of removing the code, the developer then changed it to

if ((DateTime?)startDate == null)
    throw new ArgumentNullException("startDate");

The method was still accepting the startDate as a non-nullable DateTime so could never be null. But then it was being cast to a nullable DateTime so the check against null is technically valid.

Me:
Why are you casting to nullable datetime?
 
Chandeshwar
dateTime is value type , it can never be null value.
if check dateTime == null, it's always return false .

Me:
Yes, that is correct Chandeshwar. That’s why you can delete the code completely. Your code is always false too.

Sometimes, this type of scenario leads to multiple attempts. Either

1. because they make some changes and they still get the same Sonar error,
2. they introduce a new problem,
3. or maybe the reviewer dislikes the changes and wants them to change it back.

So there’s plenty of files where our Change History looks like this

Fix Code Smell Issue <- doing what they think Sonar wanted them to do
Additional Static Analysis Fixes <-they messed up, so tried again
Addressing code review comments <- I pointed out it still wasn’t correct

Example: Magic Numbers

Magic numbers should not be used

A magic number is a number that comes out of nowhere, and is directly used in a statement. Magic numbers are often used, for instance to limit the number of iterations of a loop, to test the value of a property, etc.

Using magic numbers may seem obvious and straightforward when you’re writing a piece of code, but they are much less obvious and straightforward at debugging time

That is why magic numbers must be demystified by first being assigned to clearly named variables before being used.

-1, 0 and 1 are not considered magic numbers.

Vignesh changed code like

dosagesCount == 1

to

dosagesCount == Constants.Single

Me:
Constants are for a different purpose! They are not for replacing all the numbers in the codebase. It's a good idea to give numbers clear names, and if the same value is used multiple times, it means if you need to change the number, it will update in all places.

Vignesh
This is the rule we follow (quotes the magic number description shown above)... and I got comments from my senior level.

WHAT DOES IT SAY, VIGNESH?
“-1, 0 and 1 are not considered magic numbers”

And you have replaced 1 with the word “SINGLE”

Example: Lack of pragmatism

It frustrates me so much that so many developers even don’t agree with Sonar, or don’t understand the change, but still attempt to change it anyway. Their sole goal is to remove the error that they lose sight of the true aim to write great code that works.

Dave
OK, but why did it suggest it, and why does it make the code better? Did you understand the suggestion or just blindly do what it said?
 
Pavel
I think I understood it. The comment was: "Add the default parameter value defined in the overridden method". Default arguments are determined by the static type of the object. If a default argument is different for a parameter in an overriding method, the value used in the call will be different when calls are made via the base or derived object, which may be contrary to developer expectations.
That's why it suggested it. But in my opinion this change is redundant and doesn't make the code better.

There was some code which had loads of if statements. It was checking the types of “nodes” in a tree structure, and so attempted to cast the type. If successful, it would go into that code block, else it would attempt to cast to a different type.

Even though the developer didn’t need to change this code, he did change it to attempt to resolve Sonar issues with regards to the casting. However, he only updated some lines and not others which meant it was inconsistent so the codebase is more confusing, and still contains Sonar errors. He also took some lines out of the if statements and then performed all the casting at the top of the method. So now it was actually more inefficient because once you have found a match, you do not need to keep attempting to cast.

  {
            var creterionTag = row.Tag as LinkedCriterion;
            var relationshipTag = row.Tag as Relationship;
            var attributeTag = row.Tag as Attribute;
            var resultSetRuleTag = row.Tag as ResultSetRule;
            var conceptOrderingTag = row.Tag as ConceptOrdering;

Me
why change to "as casts" for most, but then not for Table, Concept and SharingDisplayValue?
I'm not even sure if there is an advantage to doing it this way. We now have several variables where only 1 will be set, and the rest are null.
Might be better spending more time refactoring it out to get rid of the branching.
Pattern matching is probably the neatest way for now.  https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/pattern-matching 
 
Kalya
I just simply resolved some existing SonarQube issue which not raised because of our changes. It is a kind of help to resolving existing issues, It is very difficult to resolving all the issues as of now

So he tried to help, was too difficult, so gave up, but still decided to submit the changes for review, despite making the code worse.

Example: Just Suppress it!

Of course, you can still get rid of the error without actually fixing anything. But merely hide it from the managers that are only looking at the figures:

#pragma warning disable S1075 // URIs should not be hardcoded
public const string InfoUrl = " http://med.info";
 #pragma warning restore S1075 // URIs should not be hardcoded

Conclusion