public int foo(string str)
{
Bar bar = new Bar();
string x = "test";
TEST t = bar.GetTEST();
}
将返回：Bar，字符串和TEST。
现在我所能得到的只是使用EnvDTE.CodeFunction获取方法体文本。也许有比尝试解析这段代码更好的方法来实现它。
我要借此机会发布一个我做的概念验证，因为有人告诉我这是不可能的 - 只需稍加调整，就可以相对容易地将其扩展到提取方法中引用的所有类型 - 对于其大小和缺乏前言，我感到抱歉，但它略有注释：
void Main()
{
Func<int,int> addOne = i => i + 1;
Console.WriteLine(DumpMethod(addOne));
Func<int,string> stuff = i =>
{
var m = 10312;
var j = i + m;
var k = j * j + i;
var foo = "Bar";
var asStr = k.ToString();
return foo + asStr;
};
Console.WriteLine(DumpMethod(stuff));
Console.WriteLine(DumpMethod((Func<string>)Foo.GetFooName));
Console.WriteLine(DumpMethod((Action)Console.Beep));
}
public class Foo
{
public const string FooName = "Foo";
public static string GetFooName() { return typeof(Foo).Name + ":" + FooName; }
}
public static string DumpMethod(Delegate method)
{
// For aggregating our response
StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder();
// First we need to extract out the raw IL
var mb = method.Method.GetMethodBody();
var il = mb.GetILAsByteArray();
// We'll also need a full set of the IL opcodes so we
// can remap them over our method body
var opCodes = typeof(System.Reflection.Emit.OpCodes)
.GetFields()
.Select(fi => (System.Reflection.Emit.OpCode)fi.GetValue(null));
//opCodes.Dump();
// For each byte in our method body, try to match it to an opcode
var mappedIL = il.Select(op =>
opCodes.FirstOrDefault(opCode => opCode.Value == op));
// OpCode/Operand parsing:
// Some opcodes have no operands, some use ints, etc.
// let's try to cover all cases
var ilWalker = mappedIL.GetEnumerator();
while(ilWalker.MoveNext())
{
var mappedOp = ilWalker.Current;
if(mappedOp.OperandType != OperandType.InlineNone)
{
// For operand inference:
// MOST operands are 32 bit,
// so we'll start there
var byteCount = 4;
long operand = 0;
string token = string.Empty;
// For metadata token resolution
var module = method.Method.Module;
Func<int, string> tokenResolver = tkn => string.Empty;
switch(mappedOp.OperandType)
{
// These are all 32bit metadata tokens
case OperandType.InlineMethod:
tokenResolver = tkn =>
{
var resMethod = module.SafeResolveMethod((int)tkn);
return string.Format("({0}())", resMethod == null ? "unknown" : resMethod.Name);
};
break;
case OperandType.InlineField:
tokenResolver = tkn =>
{
var field = module.SafeResolveField((int)tkn);
return string.Format("({0})", field == null ? "unknown" : field.Name);
};
break;
case OperandType.InlineSig:
tokenResolver = tkn =>
{
var sigBytes = module.SafeResolveSignature((int)tkn);
var catSig = string
.Join(",", sigBytes);
return string.Format("(SIG:{0})", catSig == null ? "unknown" : catSig);
};
break;
case OperandType.InlineString:
tokenResolver = tkn =>
{
var str = module.SafeResolveString((int)tkn);
return string.Format("('{0}')", str == null ? "unknown" : str);
};
break;
case OperandType.InlineType:
tokenResolver = tkn =>
{
var type = module.SafeResolveType((int)tkn);
return string.Format("(typeof({0}))", type == null ? "unknown" : type.Name);
};
break;
// These are plain old 32bit operands
case OperandType.InlineI:
case OperandType.InlineBrTarget:
case OperandType.InlineSwitch:
case OperandType.ShortInlineR:
break;
// These are 64bit operands
case OperandType.InlineI8:
case OperandType.InlineR:
byteCount = 8;
break;
// These are all 8bit values
case OperandType.ShortInlineBrTarget:
case OperandType.ShortInlineI:
case OperandType.ShortInlineVar:
byteCount = 1;
break;
}
// Based on byte count, pull out the full operand
for(int i=0; i < byteCount; i++)
{
ilWalker.MoveNext();
operand |= ((long)ilWalker.Current.Value) << (8 * i);
}
var resolved = tokenResolver((int)operand);
resolved = string.IsNullOrEmpty(resolved) ? operand.ToString() : resolved;
sb.AppendFormat("{0} {1}",
mappedOp.Name,
resolved)
.AppendLine();
}
else
{
sb.AppendLine(mappedOp.Name);
}
}
return sb.ToString();
}
public static class Ext
{
public static FieldInfo SafeResolveField(this Module m, int token)
{
FieldInfo fi;
m.TryResolveField(token, out fi);
return fi;
}
public static bool TryResolveField(this Module m, int token, out FieldInfo fi)
{
var ok = false;
try { fi = m.ResolveField(token); ok = true; }
catch { fi = null; }
return ok;
}
public static MethodBase SafeResolveMethod(this Module m, int token)
{
MethodBase fi;
m.TryResolveMethod(token, out fi);
return fi;
}
public static bool TryResolveMethod(this Module m, int token, out MethodBase fi)
{
var ok = false;
try { fi = m.ResolveMethod(token); ok = true; }
catch { fi = null; }
return ok;
}
public static string SafeResolveString(this Module m, int token)
{
string fi;
m.TryResolveString(token, out fi);
return fi;
}
public static bool TryResolveString(this Module m, int token, out string fi)
{
var ok = false;
try { fi = m.ResolveString(token); ok = true; }
catch { fi = null; }
return ok;
}
public static byte[] SafeResolveSignature(this Module m, int token)
{
byte[] fi;
m.TryResolveSignature(token, out fi);
return fi;
}
public static bool TryResolveSignature(this Module m, int token, out byte[] fi)
{
var ok = false;
try { fi = m.ResolveSignature(token); ok = true; }
catch { fi = null; }
return ok;
}
public static Type SafeResolveType(this Module m, int token)
{
Type fi;
m.TryResolveType(token, out fi);
return fi;
}
public static bool TryResolveType(this Module m, int token, out Type fi)
{
var ok = false;
try { fi = m.ResolveType(token); ok = true; }
catch { fi = null; }
return ok;
}
}
我刚刚发布了一个详细的示例，展示了如何使用Mono.Cecil进行静态代码分析，就像这样：how to use Mono.Cecil to do static code analysis。
我还展示了一个CallTreeSearch枚举类，可以静态地分析调用树，查找某些有趣的东西，并使用自定义提供的选择器函数生成结果，因此您可以将其与您的“有效负载”逻辑插入，例如：
static IEnumerable<TypeUsage> SearchMessages(TypeDefinition uiType, bool onlyConstructions)
{
return uiType.SearchCallTree(IsBusinessCall,
(instruction, stack) => DetectTypeUsage(instruction, stack, onlyConstructions));
}
internal class TypeUsage : IEquatable<TypeUsage>
{
public TypeReference Type;
public Stack<MethodReference> Stack;
#region equality
// ... omitted for brevity ...
#endregion
}
private static TypeUsage DetectTypeUsage(
Instruction instruction, IEnumerable<MethodReference> stack, bool onlyConstructions)
{
TypeDefinition resolve = null;
{
TypeReference tr = null;
var methodReference = instruction.Operand as MethodReference;
if (methodReference != null)
tr = methodReference.DeclaringType;
tr = tr ?? instruction.Operand as TypeReference;
if ((tr == null) || !IsInterestingType(tr))
return null;
resolve = tr.GetOriginalType().TryResolve();
}
if (resolve == null)
throw new ApplicationException("Required assembly not loaded.");
if (resolve.IsSerializable)
if (!onlyConstructions || IsConstructorCall(instruction))
return new TypeUsage {Stack = new Stack<MethodReference>(stack.Reverse()), Type = resolve};
return null;
}
这里省略了一些细节
IsBusinessCall、IsConstructorCall 和 TryResolve 的实现，因为它们很简单，只是作为示例而已希望这有所帮助
正如其他人所提到的，如果你有DLL文件，你可以使用类似于ILSpy在其分析功能中所做的（遍历程序集中的所有IL指令以查找对特定类型的引用）的方法。
否则，没有办法在不将文本解析为C#抽象语法树并使用解析器的情况下完成此操作。解析器可以充分理解代码的语义，从而知道在你的示例中“Bar”是否确实是一个从该方法（在其“using”范围内）可访问的类型的名称，或者是一个方法、成员字段等等。SharpDevelop包含一个C#解析器（称为“NRefactory”），也包含这样的解析器，你可以通过查看this thread来探索这个选项，但要注意设置它以正确工作需要相当多的工作量。
我能想到的最接近的东西是表达式树。可以查看Microsoft的文档。
但是它们非常有限，只适用于简单的表达式，而不是具有语句体的完整方法。
编辑：由于发帖者的意图是找到类耦合和使用的类型，我建议使用商业工具NDepend进行代码分析，作为一种简单的解决方案。
这绝对不能通过反射（GetMethod()，表达式树等）完成。正如您所提到的，使用EnvDTE的CodeModel是一个选项，因为您可以在那里逐行获取C#代码，但在Visual Studio之外使用它（也就是处理已经存在的函数，而不是在编辑器窗口中）几乎是不可能的，我个人认为。
但是我可以推荐Mono.Cecil，它可以逐行处理CIL代码（在方法内部），并且您可以在任何您引用的程序集中使用它。然后，您可以检查每一行是否是变量声明（例如string x =“test”）或方法调用，并且您可以获取这些行中涉及的类型。