Our website uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience.
Accept
to the top
close form

Fill out the form in 2 simple steps below:

Your contact information:

Step 1
Congratulations! This is your promo code!

Desired license type:

Step 2
Team license
Enterprise license
** By clicking this button you agree to our Privacy Policy statement
close form
Request our prices
New License
License Renewal
--Select currency--
USD
EUR
* By clicking this button you agree to our Privacy Policy statement

close form
Free PVS‑Studio license for Microsoft MVP specialists
* By clicking this button you agree to our Privacy Policy statement

close form
To get the licence for your open-source project, please fill out this form
* By clicking this button you agree to our Privacy Policy statement

close form
I am interested to try it on the platforms:
* By clicking this button you agree to our Privacy Policy statement

close form
check circle
Message submitted.

Your message has been sent. We will email you at


If you do not see the email in your inbox, please check if it is filtered to one of the following folders:

  • Promotion
  • Updates
  • Spam

Webinar: Evaluation - 05.12

>
>
>
V3139. Two or more case-branches perfor…
menu mobile close menu
Analyzer diagnostics
General Analysis (C++)
General Analysis (C#)
General Analysis (Java)
Micro-Optimizations (C++)
Diagnosis of 64-bit errors (Viva64, C++)
Customer specific requests (C++)
MISRA errors
AUTOSAR errors
OWASP errors (C++)
OWASP errors (C#)
Problems related to code analyzer
Additional information
toggle menu Contents

V3139. Two or more case-branches perform the same actions.

Sep 24 2019

The analyzer has detected a switch statement whose different case labels contain the same code. This is often a sign of redundant code, which could be improved by merging the labels. However, identical code fragments may also result from copy-paste programming, in which case they are genuine errors.

The following example illustrates the redundant code scenario:

switch (switcher) 
{
  case 0: Console.Write("0"); return;
  case 1: Console.Write("0"); return;
  default: Console.Write("default"); return;
}

Indeed, different values of 'switcher' may require performing the same actions, so the code can be rewritten in a more concise form:

switch (switcher) 
{
  case 0:
  case 1: Console.Write("0"); return;
  default: Console.Write("default"); return;
}

If you use the case expressions, you won't be able to group such expressions under one condition.

private static void ShowCollectionInformation(object coll, bool cond)
{
  switch (coll)
  {
    case Array arr:
      if(cond)
      {
        Console.WriteLine (arr.ToString());
      }
      break;
    case IEnumerable<int> arr:
      if(cond)
      {
        Console.WriteLine (arr.ToString());
      }
      break;
   }
}

You can, however, move the code into a separate method, which will make it easier to modify and debug this code in the future.

Now, the following real-life example demonstrates a programming mistake:

switch (status.BuildStatus)
{
  case IntegrationStatus.Success:
    snapshot.Status = ItemBuildStatus.CompletedSuccess;
    break;
  case IntegrationStatus.Exception:
  case IntegrationStatus.Failure:
    snapshot.Status = ItemBuildStatus.CompletedSuccess;
    break;
}

The status assignment is faulty: the 'ItemBuildStatus' enumeration has the element 'CompletedFailed', which was to be assigned in case of failure or exception.

Fixed code:

switch (status.BuildStatus)
{
  case IntegrationStatus.Success:
    snapshot.Status = ItemBuildStatus.CompletedSuccess;
    break;
  case IntegrationStatus.Exception:
  case IntegrationStatus.Failure:
    snapshot.Status = ItemBuildStatus. CompletedFailed;
    break;
}

You can look at examples of errors detected by the V3139 diagnostic.