GeezerVison

Andy Jordan (@andyleejordan), thanks for trying to push this one through. I am currently on holidays, I will check next week on why it failed the workflow.

Andy Jordan (@andyleejordan),

Apparently I was behind with my fork which caused all kind of errors.
Besides, I wrongly assumed that my last test modifications wouldn't affect Windows PowerShell 5.1, but it did and bounced into this issue

All local tests (PowerShell 5.1 and 7) have a green light now...

Christoph Bergmeister (@bergmeister), can I get your approval (or feedback) on this one? I realy would like to see this rule going in to the next PSScriptAnalyzer release.
Thanks,
-Ronald

iRon7 Thanks for the reminder (always good). I think given it's an optional rule, should be OK to add it, nothing I have against it. Kicked off CI tests now

Sean Wheeler (@sdwheeler), Mikey Lombardi (He/Him) (@michaeltlombardi),

Apparently, I need an additional review/approval.

Can you take a look at this rule PR?

Thanks in advance,
-Ronald

Hello Sean Wheeler (@sdwheeler),

I am probably missing something but there are no files attached (aka, the two links are broken)...
Or?

I am probably missing something but there are no files attached (aka, the two links are broken)...

iRon7 The links work for me. However, these files need to be added to the repository. You can get them from this PR: #2215.

iRon7 can you please resolve the merge conflict?

Christoph Bergmeister (@bergmeister), Sean Wheeler (@sdwheeler)

Not sure how to resolve this conflict...
The readme appears to have changed using reference links...

My change (new rule) should appear some where on line 45:

| [AvoidUsingNewObject](./AvoidUsingNewObject.md)    | Warning     |         No         |       Yes       |

And probably need to be changed to:

| [AvoidUsingNewObject][30]      | Warning     |         No         |       Yes       |

But what about the 50 following rules and their related reference list?
Do I need to increase every link number (in both list)?
That doesn't look very practical as that would than also be required with each new rule added in the future...
(Maybe the reference numbers should be in increments of 10, like the good old basic programs😕)

Copilot resolve the merge conflicts in this pull request (it seems Copilot cannot do it)

@copilot resolve the merge conflicts in this pull request (it seems Copilot cannot do it)

AI's could be worse than humans in a meeting: they are programmed to give an opinion even it isn't related to the issue concerned.

For the new suggestions: unfortunately I haven't the time to go over them in depth (again) this weekend and after that, I will be on holidays (without access to a computer). Besides, most of the suggestions are trivial cornercases that open a new door to a rabbithole with another cornercase at the bottom. In general, I wouldn't make the rule too complex and generally push for the PowerShell [<class-name>]<convertable-value-type> syntax (rather than the [<class-name>]::new([<constructor-argument-list>]) syntax) for scripters that have less dotnet (c#) knowledge.

Anyways, for resolving the actual merge conflict issue, I would ask Copilot to review the change in PR2196 where it proposed the new format. Note here that any solution to a specific new-rule PR merge conflict, will unlikely resolve any new-rule merge requests that follow in the future (see also issue #2220).

My recommendation (also to Sean Wheeler (@sdwheeler) ) is to go back to the original README format that doesn't use references.