Repository navigation
Add a rule to prevent checking boolean explicit on true or false #2352
Description
We have so older projects where boolean values are checked like that
if (a == true)
{
....
}
...
if (b == false)
{
...
}So it would be nice if there was a rule to prevent such useless code which IMHO makes sources harder to read.
Reacted by Mario Tacke and Greg Reddick
Activity
vweijsters commentedon May 12, 2017
I'm OK with this. It wouldn't be high on my list to implement, but if someone wants to take a shot at it, it should not be that hard to implement it (and the code fix).
pdelvo commentedon Aug 15, 2017
Do we only want this if a is Boolean? What if a is a Nullable? What if there is an implicit conversion from the type of a to Boolean?
Personally I would only do this if a is Boolean.
sharwell commentedon Aug 15, 2017
If
ais nullable then the meaning of==changes. I agree that this is only suitable isahas typebool, or if there is an implicit conversion operator fromatobool(as opposed to a user-definedoperator==forawithbool).