rspec/rules/S1845/rule.adoc

This rule raises an issue when there is a method and a field in a class with names that differ only by capitalization.

== Why is this an issue?

Looking at the set of methods in a class, including superclass methods, and finding two methods or fields that differ only by capitalization is confusing to users of the class. It is similarly confusing to have a method and a field which differ only in capitalization or a method and a field with exactly the same name and visibility.


In the case of methods, it may have been a mistake on the part of the original developer, who intended to override a superclass method, but instead added a new method with nearly the same name.


Otherwise, this situation simply indicates poor naming. Method names should be action-oriented, and thus contain a verb, which is unlikely in the case where both a method and a member have the same name (with or without capitalization differences). However, renaming a public method could be disruptive to callers. Therefore renaming the member is the recommended action.

=== Code examples

==== Noncompliant code example

[source,text,diff-id=1,diff-type=noncompliant]
----
public class Car{

  public DriveTrain drive;

  public void tearDown(){...}

  public void drive() {...}  // Noncompliant; duplicates field name
}

public class MyCar extends Car{
  public void teardown(){...}  // Noncompliant; not an override. It it really what's intended?

  public void drivefast(){...} 

  public void driveFast(){...} //Huh?
}
----


==== Compliant solution

[source,text,diff-id=1,diff-type=compliant]
----
public class Car{

  private DriveTrain drive;

  public void tearDown(){...}

  public void drive() {...}  // field visibility reduced
}

public class MyCar extends Car{
  @Override
  public void tearDown(){...}

  public void drivefast(){...} 

  public void driveReallyFast(){...}

}
----