FxCop
static code analysis tool
FxCop is a free static code analysis tool from Microsoft that checks .NET managed code assemblies for conformance to Microsoft's .NET Framework Design Guidelines.
Overview
Unlike StyleCop, or the Lint programming tool, for the C programming language, FxCop analyzes the compiled object code, not the original source code. It uses CIL parsing and callgraph analysis to inspect assemblies for more than 200 different possible coding standards violations in the following areas:
COM (Interoperability) – rules that detect COM Interop issues.
Design – rules that detect potential design flaws. These coding errors typically do not affect the execution of your code.
Globalization – rules that detect missing or incorrect usage of information related to globalization and localization.
Naming – rules that detect incorrect casing, cross language keyword collisions, and other issues related to the names of types, members, parameters, namespaces, and assemblies.
Performance – rules that detect elements in your assemblies that will degrade performance.
Security – rules that detect programming elements that leave your assemblies vulnerable to malicious users or code.
Usage – rules that detect potential flaws in your assemblies that can affect code execution.
Begin with the source’s own compact description: “FxCop” is static code analysis tool. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through FxCop, static and code, not as a finished interpretation.
Why this record matters
The phrase “static code analysis tool” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.
The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jun 26, 2024. The linked authority identifier is Q1478575. 1 of 1 selected statements include explicit references; 0 carry qualifiers and 0 use preferred rank.
A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “FxCop”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow FxCop primary sources, FxCop archive and FxCop research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “FxCop”?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “FxCop” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.