Yet another example of "suspicious" test code which intention is very clear: TEST_METHOD(TestSwitchAndReselectCurrentlyActiveValueDoesNothing) {

Yet another example of "suspicious" test code which intention is very clear: TEST_METHOD(TestSwitchAndReselectCurrentlyActiveValueDoesNothing) { // *snip* vm.Value2Active = true; // Establish base condition VERIFY_ARE_EQUAL((UINT)1, mock->m_switchActiveCallCount); VERIFY_ARE_EQUAL((UINT)1, mock->m_sendCommandCallCount); VERIFY_ARE_EQUAL((UINT)1, mock->m_setCurUnitTypesCallCount); vm.Value2Active = true; VERIFY_ARE_EQUAL((UINT)1, mock->m_switchActiveCallCount); VERIFY_ARE_EQUAL((UINT)1, mock->m_sendCommandCallCount); VERIFY_ARE_EQUAL((UINT)1, mock->m_setCurUnitTypesCallCount); } > [...] The analyzer has detected two identical code fragments executing immediately one after the other. It looks like this code was written using the copy-paste technique and the programmer forgot to modify the copies. Here Value2Active is a C++/CX property rigged to a PropertyChanged event [1] with a macro: public ref class UnitConverterViewModel sealed: public Windows::UI::Xaml::Data::INotifyPropertyChanged { // other members omitted OBSERVABLE_OBJECT(); OBSERVABLE_PROPERTY_RW(bool, Value2Active); }; Can you be sure that this actually does not have a side effect? I bet not. Indeed, the intention of the original test is clear: a property, once set ("Switch") to a particular value, should not update other states even when set ("Reselect") to that same value---as it will really trigger a side effect! This idempotency guarantee is an important interface contract worth testing, no matter what a linter and clueless blog author says. [1] https://github.com/Microsoft/calculator/blob/master/docs/ApplicationArchitecture.md#propertychanged-events https://github.com/Microsoft/calculator/blob/master/docs/App...