rspec/rules/S1848/javascript/rule.adoc

== Why is this an issue?

There is no good reason to create a new object to not do anything with it. Most of the time, this is due to a missing piece of code and so could lead to an unexpected behavior in production.


If it was done on purpose because the constructor has side-effects, then that side-effect code should be moved into a separate method and called directly.

=== Noncompliant code example

[source,javascript]
----
new MyConstructor(); // Non-Compliant
----

=== Compliant solution

[source,javascript]
----
var something = new MyConstructor();  // Compliant
----

=== Exceptions

Immediately dropped new objects inside ``++try++``-statements are ignored.

[source,javascript]
----
try {
  new MyConstructor();
} catch (e) {
  /* ... */
}
----

ifdef::env-github,rspecator-view[]

'''
== Implementation Specification
(visible only on this page)

=== Message

Either remove this useless object instantiation of "XXXX" or use it


'''
== Comments And Links
(visible only on this page)

=== on 27 May 2015, 11:57:01 Ann Campbell wrote:
Looks good [~freddy.mallet]. I forgot that moving this to a sub-task wouldn't clear out the extra fields. Thanks for taking care of that.

include::../comments-and-links.adoc[]

endif::env-github,rspecator-view[]