rspec/rules/S3399/rule.adoc

== Why is this an issue?

It is both suspicious and unusual to make direct assignments to super-class fields from a class constructor. Choosing to make such direct assignments, rather than invoking the ``++super++`` constructor that sets them, potentially bypasses important initialization.


=== Noncompliant code example

[source,text]
----
public class Parent {

  protected int start;
  public Parent() {
    //...
  }

  public Parent(int start) {
    this.start = start;
  }
}

public class Child extends Parent {

  public Child(int start) {
    this.start = start;  // Noncompliant
  }
}
----


=== Compliant solution

[source,text]
----
public class Parent {

  protected int start;
  public Parent() {
    //...
  }

  public Parent(int start) {
    this.start = start;
  }
}

public class Child extends Parent {

  public Child(int start) {
    super(start);
  }
}
----