Analyzer warnings are not logged as warnings when DiagnosticId does not follow common pattern

[taiscrummaster]

Usage Information

NUKE Version: 9.0.4, SDK: 9.0.305, Target Framework: net9.0, Operating System: Win 11

Description

We use custom DiagnosticAnalyzer to analyze our code, for example to identify and warn of remaining Todo's. These analyzers use a generic DiagnosticID like 'TodoCommentAnalyzer'. These warnings are handled as such within the IDE's and also when execute dotnet build via the command line.
When executing the build with Nuke, these warnings are logged as debug entry and hence are not shown in the Errors & Warnings summary. Interestingly, Nuke still gets them as warnings since when treating warnings as errors, the build is halted with the correct exception.

Reproduction Steps

1. Create a custom DiagnosticAnalyzer with a generic DiagnosticId (overrice DiagnosticAnalyzer):

[DiagnosticAnalyzer(LanguageNames.CSharp)]
public class TodoCommentAnalyzer : DiagnosticAnalyzer
{
    private const string DiagnosticId = "TodoCommentAnalyzer";
    private const string Category = "DocumentationRules";
    private static readonly LocalizableString Title = new LocalizableResourceString(nameof(Resources.TodoAnalyzerTitle), Resources.ResourceManager, typeof(Resources));
    private static readonly LocalizableString MessageFormat = new LocalizableResourceString(nameof(Resources.TodoAnalyzerMessageFormat), Resources.ResourceManager, typeof(Resources));
    private static readonly LocalizableString Description = new LocalizableResourceString(nameof(Resources.TodoAnalyzerDescription), Resources.ResourceManager, typeof(Resources));

    internal static readonly DiagnosticDescriptor Rule = new(
        DiagnosticId,
        Title,
        MessageFormat,
        Category,
        DiagnosticSeverity.Warning,
        true,
        Description);

// Implementation of the DiagnosticAnalyzer

2. Reference this custom DiagnosticAnalyzer in any project where the analyzer should analyze the code

<ItemGroup>
        <ProjectReference Include="..\CustomAnalyzers\CustomAnalyzers.csproj"
                          OutputItemType="Analyzer"
                          ReferenceOutputAssembly="false" />
    </ItemGroup>

3. Build the project via Nuke's DotNetBuild

Target Integrate => x => x
        .Executes(
            () =>
            {
                return DotNetBuild(s => s
                        .SetProjectFile(this.Solution)
                        .SetConfiguration(Configuration.Release)
                        .EnableNoRestore()
                        .SetNoIncremental(true)
                );
            });

=> The analyzer is triggered, but the build does not show the analyzer warning as warning

Expected Behavior

The analyzer warning is shown as such in the build log and hence is included in the Errors & Warnings summary:
[WRN] C:\Work\Erowa.LedStorageAPI\source\Erowa.LedStorageApi.Foundation\FoundationModule.cs(18,9): warning TodoCommentAnalyzer: Todo comment found: 'Todo: LED' [C:\Work\Erowa.LedStorageAPI\source\Erowa.LedStorageApi.Foundation\Erowa.LedStorageApi.Foundation.csproj]

Actual Behavior

The analyzer warning is shown as debug log in the build log and hence is not included in the Errors & Warnings summary:
[DBG] C:\Work\Erowa.LedStorageAPI\source\Erowa.LedStorageApi.Foundation\FoundationModule.cs(18,9): warning TodoCommentAnalyzer: Todo comment found: 'Todo: LED' [C:\Work\Erowa.LedStorageAPI\source\Erowa.LedStorageApi.Foundation\Erowa.LedStorageApi.Foundation.csproj]

Regression?

n/a

Known Workarounds

Do not use generic DiagnosticId like 'TodoCommentAnalyzer', instead follow the common analyzer pattern like 'TD0001'.

Could you help with a pull-request?

No

[willsmith9182]

think it's caused by this pattern

[LogLevelPattern(LogEventLevel.Warning, @": warning \w{2,5}\d{1,5}:")]

on

nuke/source/Nuke.Common/Tools/DotNet/DotNetTasks.cs

Line 30 in da2ea1f

public partial class DotNetTasks

I don't see an easy way to provide a custom level filter to allow your non standard diagnostic id though.

My suggestion is change your diagnostic id to confirm (ms docs)

Matt might entertain a PR to adjust that pattern to match the MS guides if you're feeling helpful. as the current pattern is more restrictive than the guidance offered by ms.