Code doesn't report SA1304

[GregReddick]

First reported in #1766, Issue D11, with refinements here.

The code below would report SA1304, SA1307, and SA1311 in classic StyleCop. In the current analyzer, it reports only SA1307 and SA1311, not reporting SA1304. I think even two warnings may be too much, and we should at the least document the difference, and consider suppressing SA1307 too. If there is a large code base trying to be changed to the StyleCop style, the proliferation of warnings becomes daunting when you have 1000+ warnings that show up, when half of which are redundant reporting of "capitalize your field names".

namespace RuleViolations
{
    /// <summary>A rule SA1311 fail.</summary>
    public static class RuleSA1311Fail
    {
        /// <summary>The value.</summary>
        public static readonly int value = 1;
    }
}

[sharwell]

Related to #574 and #1306 (which focused on instance fields).

I think only SA1311 should be reported here.

[sharwell]

I remember why we did this now.

• SA1307 affects accessible fields, which means the public API surface area.
• SA1311 is a style choice which partially overlaps with SA1307.

It is reasonable to think some teams would disable SA1307 while others would disable SA1311. If SA1311 was a strict subset of SA1307, then it would make sense to not report SA1307 here, but that is not the case.

SA1304 is suppressed in this case because the emphasis for teams is some combination of SA1307 and SA1311.