Clearing out the only 1805 violation using the method listed here: ht…

[cbredlow]

…tps://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/fundamentals/code-analysis/quality-rules/ca1805#how-to-fix-violations

Pull Request

The issue or feature being addressed

Addressing the CA1805 as a part of issue 1290

Details on the issue fix or feature implementation

Removed the NoWarn for CA1805, and changes the spinner to be static and have a lambda for the default value, as suggested here: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/fundamentals/code-analysis/quality-rules/ca1805#how-to-fix-violations

Confirm the following

• I started this PR by branching from the head of the default branch
• I have targeted the PR to merge into the default branch
• I have included unit tests for the issue/feature
• I have successfully run a local build

[cbredlow]

@dotnet-policy-service agree

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 1 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 83.66%. Comparing base (785c482) to head (37d201e).

Files	Patch %	Lines
.../Polly/RateLimit/LockFreeTokenBucketRateLimiter.cs	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2032      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   83.70%   83.66%   -0.04%     
==========================================
  Files         312      312              
  Lines        7105     7106       +1     
  Branches     1054     1054              
==========================================
- Hits         5947     5945       -2     
- Misses        788      790       +2     
- Partials      370      371       +1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
linux	83.66% <0.00%> (-0.04%)	⬇️
macos	83.66% <0.00%> (-0.02%)	⬇️
windows	83.66% <0.00%> (-0.02%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[martincostello]

In this case I don't believe this is the correct change to make here.

Making this a static property means that each access to the spinner effectively resets the internal state it has as all usage of it now gets a fresh value instead of the state being maintained for the lifetime of an instance of the rate limiter.

Either instead of default we should change the original code to use new(), and if that still raises warnings, then we should just explicitly suppress the CA1805 warning instead.

[martincostello]

I'm going to close this due to activity. If you'd like to continue with this contribution, please open a new PR that addresses the comment here: #2032 (comment)