rspec/rules/S1244/comments-and-links.adoc

=== is duplicated by: S884

=== on 22 Apr 2014, 21:37:12 Evgeny Mandrikov wrote:
\[~freddy.mallet] [~ann.campbell.2] duplicates RSPEC-884 ?

=== on 23 Apr 2014, 15:30:08 Ann Campbell wrote:
Closed the other since this is more fully specified

=== on 23 Apr 2014, 15:54:51 Evgeny Mandrikov wrote:
\[~ann.campbell.2] For rules coming from MISRA I prefer titles from MISRA instead of hand-crafted ones ;) Same probably for description - I expect it to be good in MISRA.

=== on 17 Sep 2014, 10:01:01 Freddy Mallet wrote:
@Ann, for me the compliant solution is incorrect because if the developer really wants to check for equality, using the ">=" operator is obviously not an option. 


See MISRA description:

____
The recommended method for achieving deterministic floating-point comparisons is to write a library


that implements the comparison operations. The library should take into account the floating-point


granularity (FLT_EPSILON) and the magnitude of the numbers being compared. See also Rule 13.4 and


Rule 20.3.

____

=== on 30 Sep 2014, 08:50:00 Evgeny Mandrikov wrote:
\[~ann.campbell.2] I can't finish implementation of this rule with unfinished description - see comment from [~freddy.mallet]

=== on 30 Sep 2014, 12:00:34 Ann Campbell wrote:
\[~evgeny.mandrikov] see the C-Family sub-task

=== on 30 Sep 2014, 12:14:12 Evgeny Mandrikov wrote:
\[~ann.campbell.2] ok, thx

=== on 3 Oct 2014, 08:16:25 Nicolas Peru wrote:
I disagree with cases like : 

----
if(myNumber <= 3.146 && myNumber >= 3.146)
if (myNumber < 4 || myNumber > 4) 
----
For me this is crappy code no matter if you are using floating point or not. I truly believe this case should not pollute this rule and be a rule on its own (applied to every numeric type) with the suggestion to refactor it using ``++=++`` or ``++!=++`` 




=== on 3 Oct 2014, 14:02:01 Ann Campbell wrote:
\[~nicolas.peru] what if the user activates this rule but not the other one? 

Also, the "crappy" example is drawn almost exactly from MISRA. We can debate whether or not it belongs in the Java implementation (although it is an equality test), but it needs to remain in the main rule.