Daily DevOps & .NET - Where Code Meets Culture

Opinionated .NET, Azure and DevOps engineering. Hard-won lessons from production, no tutorials.

My Analyzer Shipped Without Checking Its Own Source

My Analyzer Shipped Without Checking Its Own Source

NetEvolve.Analyzer enforces null-check idioms and file organization on other people’s code, but had never run against its own. Fixing that surfaced 39 warnings, a silent Visual Studio MEF failure, and a follow-up NE0008 bug where DateOnly and TimeOnly got flagged blind to which target framework actually has them, the same multi-targeting blindness in a different corner of the codebase.
Cyber Resilience Act for .NET Library Authors: Read the Fine Print

Cyber Resilience Act for .NET Library Authors: Read the Fine Print

The EU Cyber Resilience Act’s headline deadline is December 2027, but the reporting clock starts more than a year earlier. Article 14 vulnerability reporting applies from September 2026. Here is the engineering map I built for my own NuGet release pipeline: what the CRA regulates, the 24/72-hour cadence, SBOM tooling for .NET, and where the open-source carve-out holds.
Incremental Source Generators Done Right: Ship It Without Breaking Consumers

Incremental Source Generators Done Right: Ship It Without Breaking Consumers

Parts 1 through 3 of this series made the generator correct, incremental, and proven by tests. None of it reaches a single consumer if the NuGet package is laid out wrong — and the failure modes are silent: a DLL in lib/ instead of analyzers/dotnet/cs simply never loads, a missing dependency throws only inside the compiler, and a marker attribute delivered carelessly breaks InternalsVisibleTo in ways users cannot diagnose. This final part covers the packaging contract: the netstandard2.0 rule, the package layout, dependency bundling, attribute delivery, debugging the shipped bits, and the analyzer hygiene rules that keep you honest.
Incremental Source Generators Done Right: Prove the Cache Hits

Incremental Source Generators Done Right: Prove the Cache Hits

You followed the equality rules, you shaped the pipeline correctly, and your generator still might be re-running on every keystroke — because nobody ever asked the driver. Roslyn records exactly why each pipeline step re-executed, and you can assert against those reasons in a plain xUnit test. This is the test that turns “my generator is incremental” from a claim into a regression-protected fact, plus the catalog of anti-patterns it catches in the wild.
Incremental Source Generators Done Right: Pipeline Patterns That Scale

Incremental Source Generators Done Right: Pipeline Patterns That Scale

Part 1 of this series established the equality contract: every value flowing through an incremental generator pipeline must be comparable by value, or the cache misses and the generator re-runs on every keystroke. This part is about the pipeline itself — ForAttributeWithMetadataName as the entry point, where to filter, where to transform, how to combine providers without accidentally subscribing to the entire Compilation, and the Collect trap that silently breaks everything you fixed in part 1. It ends with a complete worked generator you can steal.