.Net inspection step - strange errors

When I tried to use new .NET Inspection feature (7.0 EAP build 20334) I got a lot of strange errors, like this, but my project works well. :)
Why?

CSharpErrors
FileName.cs(5)
01: Cannot resolve symbol 'Linq'
96: Cannot resolve symbol 'Where'
96: Cannot resolve symbol 'Url'
97: Cannot resolve symbol 'Any'
98: Cannot resolve symbol 'First'
6 comments
Comment actions Permalink

Same problem here. Does not happen for all projects that use LINQ though. I cannot pinpoint the cause, but it seems to be something in .csproj causing this.

0
Comment actions Permalink

Eduard, Oleg, thank you very much for your feedback!
Please check that you got 'System.Core' assembly explicitly referenced in all your projects. Please let me know if it is helps or not.

0
Comment actions Permalink

Yes it works for me. One of my projects did not have explicit reference for 'System.Core'. But I think would be great to fix it or provide good hint.

0
Comment actions Permalink

Nice!
This issue will be fixed from two sides:
1. Detector of unused references will be included in the next ReSharper version. It will handle this case correctly, so you will be notified that 'System.Core' reference has implicit usages in your project.
2. TeamCity .Net inspections runner will check for unresolved references before executing inspections and will give you clear error message in this case.

Thank you for your feedback again. Feel free to ask any question you will have.

0
Comment actions Permalink

Guys, feel free to watch / vote / comment the related r# issue.

0
Comment actions Permalink

Evgeniy,

I was unable to add System.Core via the IDE. I got an error message:
A reference to 'system.Core' could not be added. This component is already automatically referenced by the build system.

Instead, I manually added it to .csproj file and that fixed the issue. Interestingly, the project compiled just fine in VS and TeamCity before I made that change. ReSharper 6 did not show this problem. Somehow only .NET inspector detected the issue (seems like kind of fake positive to me).

Anyway, thanks for the suggestion. I agree with Eduard that having some pointer on a potential fix would be useful.

Best regards,
Oleg

0

Please sign in to leave a comment.