Default templates have analyzer warnings

[Youssef1313]

(I'm not sure whether this should be a discussion or an issue)

1. Program class can be made static.

2. ConfigureServices can be marked static. (Not sure if it should).

   • Note: the analyzer suggests that Startup class be marked as static, but actually it can't as it's used as a type argument.

3. Parameter services in ConfigureServices is never used. However, most likely it will be used later. So, I'm okay if this is ignored if there isn't a good solution to it.

4. Consider calling ConfigureAwait on awaited task. (Might be not very important as it's just hello, world. But I think it's a good practice to add ConfigureAwait(false);

[Youssef1313]

cc: @stephentoub for the last point.

[Youssef1313]

Is there a reason to not add ConfigureAwait(false) in a case like that? Would it be better if ConfigureAwait(true) was added to the template?

https://devblogs.microsoft.com/dotnet/configureawait-faq/

"if you’re writing app-level code, do not use ConfigureAwait(false).", I think this is the conclusion. So from my very basic understanding, it's intentional not to add ConfigureAwait(false). Do you think adding ConfigureAwait(true) to be explicit about this is a good idea?

[stephentoub]

it's intentional not to add ConfigureAwait(false)

Yes

Do you think adding ConfigureAwait(true) to be explicit about this is a good idea?

No 😄

[Youssef1313]

Thanks. Just few questions I still have.

Do you think adding ConfigureAwait(true) to be explicit about this is a good idea?

No 😄

Is the reason just a matter of style and/or unnecessary change to the default template?

---

Is there something that can be done to make the analyzer package not produce these warnings?

[stephentoub]

Is the reason just a matter of style and/or unnecessary change to the default template?

It's unnecessary clutter for zero gain.

Is there something that can be done to make the analyzer package not produce these warnings?

Sure, disable the rule. The FxCopAnalyzers package is primarily about libraries; that's what the "FX" means: framework.

[Youssef1313]

@stephentoub, Thanks for the help answering this. I really appreciate that very much.
I'll mark as answered now.