GeezerVison

The World Wide Web, restored to 800 pixels of glory.

GeezerVison is showing github.com — Warn on integer ValidateRange bounds for floating-point parameters by Copilot · Pull Request #2267 · PowerShell/PSScriptAnalyzer

Conversation

Copilot AI commented Oct 27, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Copy link

Copy Markdown

Contributor

Integer ValidateRange bounds can allow fractional values outside the declared range on double, single, and decimal parameters.

Analyzer rule: Add an always-enabled warning for integral bounds on these parameter types.
Coverage and docs: Add focused tests and document the rule.

# Warning: integer bounds can allow fractional values outside the range
param([double][ValidateRange(0, 100)]$Value)

# Use floating-point bounds
param([double][ValidateRange(0.0, 100.0)]$Value)

Fixes ValidateRange boundary type vs parameter type check #2199

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

All reactions


          Initial plan

4fee79e

Copilot AI assigned Copilot and Christoph Bergmeister (bergmeister)

Oct 27, 2026

Copilot started work on behalf of Christoph Bergmeister (bergmeister)

October 27, 2026 22:32

View session

Copilot AI linked an issue

Oct 27, 2026

that may be closed by this pull request

ValidateRange boundary type vs parameter type check #2199

Open


          Add ValidateRange boundary type mismatch rule

7cdaee3

Co-authored-by: bergmeister <[email protected]>

Copilot AI changed the title ~~[WIP] Add type check for ValidateRange boundaries~~ Warn on integer ValidateRange bounds for floating-point parameters

Oct 27, 2026

Copilot finished work on behalf of Christoph Bergmeister (bergmeister)

October 27, 2026 22:41

Copilot AI requested a review from Christoph Bergmeister (bergmeister)

October 27, 2026 22:41

Christoph Bergmeister (bergmeister) requested a balanced review from Copilot

October 28, 2026 11:35

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of Christoph Bergmeister (bergmeister)

October 28, 2026 11:35

View session

Copilot AI reviewed

Oct 28, 2026

View reviewed changes

Copilot AI left a comment

Copy link

Copy Markdown

Contributor

There was a problem hiding this comment.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

🟡 Changes recommended

The rule misses affected array parameters and integral-cast bounds while incorrectly warning on mixed integer/floating-point bounds.

3 open issues

What changed in this PR

Adds a built-in PSScriptAnalyzer warning for integer ValidateRange bounds on floating-point and decimal parameters, addressing the boundary-validation concern in #2199.

Changes:

Introduces the always-enabled PSAvoidValidateRangeTypeMismatch warning and diagnostic messages.
Adds tests for supported parameter types, boundary literals, and qualified attribute names.
Documents the rule with examples and adds it to the rule index.

File	Description
Tests/Rules/AvoidValidateRangeTypeMismatch.tests.ps1	Adds warning and no-warning test cases.
Rules/Strings.resx	Adds rule metadata and diagnostic text.
Rules/AvoidValidateRangeTypeMismatch.cs	Implements parameter and boundary-type checks.
docs/Rules/README.md	Lists the new warning rule.
docs/Rules/AvoidValidateRangeTypeMismatch.md	Explains the rule, examples, and suppression options.

_{Review effort: Balanced}

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

All reactions

Comment thread

Rules/AvoidValidateRangeTypeMismatch.cs Resolved

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Comment thread

Rules/AvoidValidateRangeTypeMismatch.cs Resolved

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Comment thread

Rules/AvoidValidateRangeTypeMismatch.cs Resolved

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Christoph Bergmeister (bergmeister) added this pull request to stack #2274

October 28, 2026 11:58

Copilot AI mentioned this pull request

Oct 28, 2026

Handle arrays and casts in ValidateRange type-mismatch warnings #2273

Merged

Christoph Bergmeister (bergmeister) removed this pull request from stack #2274

October 28, 2026 12:11

Christoph Bergmeister (bergmeister) added this pull request to stack #2277

October 28, 2026 12:24

Christoph Bergmeister (bergmeister) removed this pull request from stack #2277

October 28, 2026 12:31


          Handle arrays and casts in ValidateRange type-mismatch warnings (#2273)

117fa6b

* Initial plan

* Fix ValidateRange analyzer review findings

Co-authored-by: bergmeister <[email protected]>

* Restore decimal range test coverage

Co-authored-by: bergmeister <[email protected]>

---------

Co-authored-by: copilot-swe-agent[bot] <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: bergmeister <[email protected]>

Christoph Bergmeister (bergmeister) requested a balanced review from Copilot

October 28, 2026 13:13

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of Christoph Bergmeister (bergmeister)

October 28, 2026 13:13

View session

Copilot AI reviewed

Oct 28, 2026

View reviewed changes

Copilot AI left a comment

Copy link

Copy Markdown

Contributor

There was a problem hiding this comment.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

🟡 Changes recommended

The rule misses static integral constant bounds and incorrectly flags unrelated custom ValidateRange attributes, causing both false negatives and false positives.

1 open issue

Handle static integral constants in ValidateRange bounds · New

1 previously missed issue

In code that hasn't changed since last review

Match the resolved ValidateRangeAttribute type

Rules/AvoidValidateRangeTypeMismatch.cs:121

Discarding the namespace also matches unrelated custom attributes. For example, [Contoso.ValidateRange(0, 100)] on a double parameter triggers this warning even when that attribute is not PowerShell's range validator and has different semantics. Compare the resolved attribute type with System.Management.Automation.ValidateRangeAttribute instead; this supports both short and fully qualified built-in names without reporting unrelated attributes.

3 resolved since last review

_{Review effort: Balanced}

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

All reactions

Comment thread

Rules/AvoidValidateRangeTypeMismatch.cs Resolved

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Christoph Bergmeister (bergmeister) added this pull request to stack #2279

October 28, 2026 13:20

Copilot AI mentioned this pull request

Oct 28, 2026

Recognize static integral ValidateRange bounds #2278

Merged

Christoph Bergmeister (bergmeister) removed this pull request from stack #2279

October 28, 2026 15:14


          Recognize static integral ValidateRange bounds (#2278)

919cef7

* Initial plan

* Handle ValidateRange static integral bounds

Co-authored-by: bergmeister <[email protected]>

* Fix ValidateRange review edge cases

Co-authored-by: bergmeister <[email protected]>

* Add real Contoso.ValidateRangeAttribute to test fixture

Co-authored-by: bergmeister <[email protected]>

* Test non-constant ValidateRange bounds

Co-authored-by: bergmeister <[email protected]>

---------

Co-authored-by: copilot-swe-agent[bot] <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: bergmeister <[email protected]>

Christoph Bergmeister (bergmeister) requested a balanced review from Copilot

October 28, 2026 15:17

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of Christoph Bergmeister (bergmeister)

October 28, 2026 15:18

View session

Copilot AI reviewed

Oct 28, 2026

View reviewed changes

Copilot AI left a comment

Copy link

Copy Markdown

Contributor

There was a problem hiding this comment.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

🔵 Needs a closer look

The rule skips nullable floating-point parameters, leaving fractional values outside integer ValidateRange bounds undetected; nullable types need unwrapping and coverage for double, single, and decimal parameters.

No open issues 🎉

1 previously missed issue

In code that hasn't changed since last review

Handle nullable floating-point parameters in range validation

Rules/AvoidValidateRangeTypeMismatch.cs:71

Nullable floating-point parameters are skipped here: param([Nullable[double]][ValidateRange(0, 100)]$Value) resolves to Nullable<double>, which is not in this set. A non-null nullable value is boxed as its underlying numeric type, so integer bounds still permit out-of-range fractional values. Unwrap nullable types before this check and add coverage for nullable double, single, and decimal parameters.

1 resolved since last review

Handle static integral constants in ValidateRange bounds

_{Review effort: Balanced}

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

All reactions

Christoph Bergmeister (bergmeister) commented Oct 28, 2026

Copy link

Copy Markdown

Collaborator

🔵 Needs a closer look

The rule skips nullable floating-point parameters, leaving fractional values outside integer ValidateRange bounds undetected; nullable types need unwrapping and coverage for double, single, and decimal parameters.

No open issues 🎉

1 previously missed issue
In code that hasn't changed since last review

Handle nullable floating-point parameters in range validation
Rules/AvoidValidateRangeTypeMismatch.cs:71

Nullable floating-point parameters are skipped here: param([Nullable[double]][ValidateRange(0, 100)]$Value) resolves to Nullable<double>, which is not in this set. A non-null nullable value is boxed as its underlying numeric type, so integer bounds still permit out-of-range fractional values. Unwrap nullable types before this check and add coverage for nullable double, single, and decimal parameters.

1 resolved since last review

Handle static integral constants in ValidateRange bounds

Review effort: Balanced

Copilot fix

All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Copilot started work on behalf of Christoph Bergmeister (bergmeister)

October 28, 2026 15:23

View session


          Handle nullable ValidateRange parameter types

32bcb67

Co-authored-by: bergmeister <[email protected]>

Copilot AI commented Oct 28, 2026

Copy link

Copy Markdown

Contributor Author

🔵 Needs a closer look

The rule skips nullable floating-point parameters, leaving fractional values outside integer ValidateRange bounds undetected; nullable types need unwrapping and cover...

Nullable double, single, and decimal parameter types are now unwrapped before checking; regression tests pass. Fixed in 32bcb67.

All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Copilot finished work on behalf of Christoph Bergmeister (bergmeister)

October 28, 2026 15:30

Christoph Bergmeister (bergmeister) requested a balanced review from Copilot

October 28, 2026 15:57

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of Christoph Bergmeister (bergmeister)

October 28, 2026 15:57

View session

Copilot AI reviewed

Oct 28, 2026

View reviewed changes

Copilot AI left a comment

Copy link

Copy Markdown

Contributor

There was a problem hiding this comment.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

🔵 Needs a closer look

Human assessment is needed because parenthesized integer bounds can bypass the rule’s warning, potentially allowing fractional values outside the declared range.

No open issues 🎉

_{Review effort: Balanced}

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

All reactions

Christoph Bergmeister (bergmeister) marked this pull request as ready for review

October 28, 2026 16:05

Christoph Bergmeister (bergmeister) requested review from a team and Mikey Lombardi (He/Him) (michaeltlombardi) as code owners

October 28, 2026 16:05

Christoph Bergmeister (bergmeister) added the Issue - New Rule label

Oct 28, 2026

Reviewers

Copilot code review Copilot

Copilot review effort

Applies to this pull request for everyone.Learn more about Copilot code review.

Copilot left review comments

Christoph Bergmeister (bergmeister)

Awaiting requested review from bergmeister

bergmeister is a code owner

Mikey Lombardi (He/Him) (michaeltlombardi)

Awaiting requested review from michaeltlombardi

michaeltlombardi is a code owner

At least 1 approving review is required to merge this pull request.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Assignees

Christoph Bergmeister (bergmeister)

Copilot code review Copilot

Labels

Issue - New Rule

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

ValidateRange boundary type vs parameter type check

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

3 participants

Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.

You are visitor 01402503 — GeezerVison does not store the pages you look up.
Best viewed with Netscape Navigator 4.7 or Internet Explorer 6 at 800×600. No cookies required.

GeezerVison

Conversation

Copilot AI commented Oct 27, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

🟡 Changes recommended

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

🟡 Changes recommended

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

🔵 Needs a closer look

Uh oh!

Christoph Bergmeister (bergmeister) commented Oct 28, 2026

🔵 Needs a closer look

Uh oh!

Copilot AI commented Oct 28, 2026

🔵 Needs a closer look

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

🔵 Needs a closer look

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Uh oh!

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

Copilot AI commented Oct 27, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.