Deleted redundant implementation that was inadvertently left around after a merge. The implementation was already in SourceMethodSymbolWithAttributes. #ByDesign

override [](start = 15, length = 8)

Can we seal this implementation? #Closed

I think we need to override it in SynthesizedMethodBaseSymbol.

In reply to: 371410335 [](ancestors = 371410335)

I think we need to override it in SynthesizedMethodBaseSymbol.

SynthesizedMethodBaseSymbol inherits from SourceMemberMethodSymbol

In reply to: 371421097 [](ancestors = 371421097,371410335)

void LF() [](start = 12, length = 9)

It looks like we are missing a positive test for a scenario when a local function is nested into a lambda. #Closed

You could do

protected bool AreContainingSymbolLocalsZeroed => ContainingSymbol switch
{
    SourceMethodSymbol m => m.AreLocalsZeroed,
    SourceNamedTypeSymbol t => t.AreLocalsZeroed,
    _ => true
};

#Resolved

Does this handle the scenario where the ContainingSymbol is a SourceFieldSymbolFromDeclarator and the containing type has SkipLocalsInitAttribute? #Resolved

I think when I was triaging this I was surprised to find this as the ContainingSymbol for some scenario or other, but I tried to create a test that would create a bad behavior here and couldn't do it, so I'm good with taking your suggestion. #Resolved

Aleksey came up with a test case involving a field initializer containing a lambda, where the ContainingSymbol is a FieldSymbol and we have to instead look up to the ContainingType. So I reverted the suggestion. #Closed

Were you thinking of a lambda inside a field initializer? #Resolved

I could see that as being a reasonable scenario that would be broken with my code. #Resolved

void F() [](start = 8, length = 8)

I think we should also test scenarios when the attribute is applied to a containing member (including events/properties if allowed), or containing type, or containing module. #Closed

Some of these scenarios already had tests, such as SkipLocalsInitAttributeOnMethodPropagatesToLocalFunction, but I added tests for the other scenarios you mentioned.

In reply to: 371418225 [](ancestors = 371418225)

SkipLocalsInitFieldInitializer [](start = 20, length = 30)

It doesn't look like this test actually tests anything in field initializer. However, I think this is an interesting scenario to test. We could have a lambda with a local function within a field initializer. We also could have two constructors: one with an attribute and one without. It feels like the attributes on the constructors shouldn't have any effect on the lambda and the local function. But the attribute on the type/module should have an effect. Please add a test like this. #Resolved

What's a more appropriate term for this test? "ImplicitConstructor"?

In reply to: 371973916 [](ancestors = 371973916)

What's a more appropriate term for this test? "ImplicitConstructor"?

Yes, I think this term will describe the purpose of the test more accurately.

In reply to: 371989150 [](ancestors = 371989150,371973916)