rspec/rules/S3427/comments-and-links.adoc

=== on 30 Nov 2015, 10:54:12 Tamas Vajk wrote:
\[~ann.campbell.2] Could you check this RSPEC? I splitted RSPEC-3220 as it covered two similar, but different cases. (One reports on declarations, the other on invocations.)

=== on 1 Dec 2015, 14:59:49 Ann Campbell wrote:
I've updated the end of the description with a "this rule raises an issue" sentence. Please check my accuracy.

=== on 30 May 2023, 17:10:00 Cristian Ambrosini wrote:
During a LaYC sprint, I removed cfamily dummy implementation, since it's not implemented in the corresponding analyzer and there are no tickets open in order to do so.
Fix the comment display: rule-id, timestamp, GH visibility, link direction 2021-06-03 09:05:38 +02:00			`=== on 30 Nov 2015, 10:54:12 Tamas Vajk wrote:`
Export comments and rspec-to-rspec links from jira 2021-06-02 20:44:38 +02:00			`\[~ann.campbell.2] Could you check this RSPEC? I splitted RSPEC-3220 as it covered two similar, but different cases. (One reports on declarations, the other on invocations.)`

Fix the comment display: rule-id, timestamp, GH visibility, link direction 2021-06-03 09:05:38 +02:00			`=== on 1 Dec 2015, 14:59:49 Ann Campbell wrote:`
Export comments and rspec-to-rspec links from jira 2021-06-02 20:44:38 +02:00			`I've updated the end of the description with a "this rule raises an issue" sentence. Please check my accuracy.`

Modify rule S3427: Migrate to new educational format (#1957) 2023-05-31 11:16:19 +02:00			`=== on 30 May 2023, 17:10:00 Cristian Ambrosini wrote:`
			`During a LaYC sprint, I removed cfamily dummy implementation, since it's not implemented in the corresponding analyzer and there are no tickets open in order to do so.`