False positive in CA2000

To handle the CA2000 warning regarding the disposal of objects when using the ContainerControlledLifetimeManager in Unity, you have a few options:

1. Use a Parent Container: Instead of disposing of the ContainerControlledLifetimeManager directly, you can create a parent container that manages the lifetime of child containers. This way, when the parent container is disposed, it will also dispose of its child containers and their lifetime managers.
2. Implement IDisposable: If your class is responsible for creating the container, you can implement the IDisposable interface. In the Dispose method, you can dispose of the Unity container, which will handle the disposal of the ContainerControlledLifetimeManager as well.
3. Suppress the Warning: If you are confident that the container will be disposed properly and the warning is not applicable in your context, you can suppress the CA2000 warning using a suppression attribute. However, this should be done cautiously and only if you are sure about the lifecycle management.
4. Use a Factory Pattern: Consider using a factory pattern to encapsulate the creation and disposal of the container. This can help manage the lifecycle more effectively and reduce the instances where you need to directly manage the container's disposal.

By following these strategies, you can effectively manage the lifetime of your objects and avoid false positives from the CA2000 warning.

Thanks for reaching out. CA200 warns because the lifetime manager (which implements IDisposable) is created locally and not explicitly disposed before the method returns- but in reality Unity container takes ownership of that lifetime manager and disposes it when container itself is disposed.

Because CA2000 works via static analysis and cannot fully reason about that ownership transfer, it treats this as a potential resource leak- hence the “false positive”.

Understanding the root cause

CA2000 is designed to catch cases where an IDisposable object is allocated in a scope and never disposed, which could lead to resource leaks.

• The analyzer cannot reliably detect all ownership-transfer semantics (e.g., “this object is given to a DI container , which will manage disposal later”). As a result, many legitimate scenarios (like DI container, UI controls added to a tree, etc.) trigger “false positives”.
• In your case, you call something like:

    IUnityContainer aContainer2 = new UnityContainer();
    aContainer2.RegisterType<ITest , Test>(new 
  

  The new ContainerControlledLifetimeManager() is not disposed in that method-but UnityContainer assumes ownership.

What you should do:

1. Use try/catch +manual disposal on failure path if you want to satisfy CA2000 strictly (including exception paths), you can write code like this:

      var lifetimeManager = new 
      try
      {
      	aContainer2.RegisterType<ITest , Test>(lifetimeManager);
      }
      catch
      {
      	lifetimeManager.Dispose();
      	throw;
      }
   

   This ensure that if RegisterType throws (before the container records the manager), the manager is disposed- preventing a potential leak and silencing CA2000. This pattern was proposed years ago by folks dealing with this very issue. However, many developers find this verbose and unhelpful, because in “normal” (non-exceptional) flow disposal is redundant.
2. Suppress CA2000 for this specific usage If you are confident that the container will be disposed appropriately (so the lifetime manager will eventually be cleaned up), suppressing the warning is a valid approach. CA2000 documentation explicitly allows suppression when ownership is transferred. Example:

      #pragma warning disable CA2000
      aContainer2.RegisterType<ITest, Test>( new 
      #pragma warning restore CA2000
   

   Or configure suppression in your project’s .editorconfig (or ruleset) if this pattern in pervasive.
3. Adjust Analyzer configuration(when possible) If your codebase uses Unity (or another DI container) broadly, you might consider configuring CA2000 to exclude lifetime-manager types from analysis. The CA2000 rule allows exclusion of specific types (and their derived types) via excluded_types_names_with_derived_types. Example (pseudocode for .editorconfig):

      fornet_code_quality.CA2000.excluded_type_names_with_derived_types = 
   

   This approach effectively tells the analyzer “don’t warn when this specific type is created” because you know disposal is handled elsewhere.
4. Document ownership transfer clearly Where you register lifetime managers (or other disposable helpers), add a comment explaining that disposable is deferred to the container, to help future maintainers. This doesn’t stop CA2000 by itself- but helps justify a suppression or configuration change.

Reference:

• https://v4.hkg1.meaqua.org/en-us/dotnet/fundamentals/code-analysis/quality-rules/ca2000
• https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4264986/to-dispose-or-not-to-dispose-ca2000
• https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3256104/code-analysis-warning-ca2000-call-dispose-on-object-new-containercontrolledlif

Please let us know if you require any further assistance we’re happy to help. If you found this information useful, kindly mark this as "Accept Answer".