0

I'm trying to make a case for my organization to switch from the legacy code analysis for C# projects to start using Roslyn Analyzers. I think that most people are sold on the idea because of all the benefits it offers (not to mention code analysis is being deprecated), but the one main hangup is that we have such a large solution (~400 projects) and the extra time it takes to run the legacy code analysis today is too painful for individual developers to run all the time. Today we only enable code analysis on Release so that we don't have to take that hit every compile. From my understanding, Roslyn analyzers aren't able to be configured to run in Release vs. Debug (nor would you want them to, IMHO). The fear is that if we switch, compile times for everyone will immediately go up and that is not seen as acceptable.

I know that there are other options to increase build times (e.g. splitting up the solution, using the conditional solution loading, etc.) but I specifically am interested to know if anyone has any data about the amount of time Roslyn Analyzers add to a compile vs using legacy code analysis.

spdygnlz
  • 21
  • 4
  • "The fear is that if we switch, compile times for everyone will immediately go up" -> have you measured this (on your specific solution)? – Kris Vandermotten Jul 22 '19 at 11:15
  • @KrisVandermotten - No, because of the size of the solution (and other priorities), nobody has yet gotten around to test it out. What I was hoping to get was some data that anyone has come across (or has themselves) that I can use to justify to the pointy hairs that spending time switching over is worth the effort. – spdygnlz Aug 05 '19 at 23:04

0 Answers0