rspec/rules/S2386/comments-and-links.adoc

=== deprecates: S1873

=== deprecates: S2385

=== is related to: S3887

=== on 27 Jan 2015, 20:34:17 Freddy Mallet wrote:
What about "public final static" fields ? I would apply the same rule except when the type of the field is a java primitive type or a String.

=== on 29 Jul 2020, 14:44:13 Alexandre Gigleux wrote:
I change the type from Vulnerability to Code Smell after discussing with AppSec bubble and the fact the same decision was taken for RSPEC-1104.
Fix the comment display: rule-id, timestamp, GH visibility, link direction 2021-06-03 09:05:38 +02:00			`=== deprecates: S1873`
Export comments and rspec-to-rspec links from jira 2021-06-02 20:44:38 +02:00
Fix the comment display: rule-id, timestamp, GH visibility, link direction 2021-06-03 09:05:38 +02:00			`=== deprecates: S2385`
Export comments and rspec-to-rspec links from jira 2021-06-02 20:44:38 +02:00
Fix the comment display: rule-id, timestamp, GH visibility, link direction 2021-06-03 09:05:38 +02:00			`=== is related to: S3887`
Export comments and rspec-to-rspec links from jira 2021-06-02 20:44:38 +02:00
Fix the comment display: rule-id, timestamp, GH visibility, link direction 2021-06-03 09:05:38 +02:00			`=== on 27 Jan 2015, 20:34:17 Freddy Mallet wrote:`
Export comments and rspec-to-rspec links from jira 2021-06-02 20:44:38 +02:00			`What about "public final static" fields ? I would apply the same rule except when the type of the field is a java primitive type or a String.`

Fix the comment display: rule-id, timestamp, GH visibility, link direction 2021-06-03 09:05:38 +02:00			`=== on 29 Jul 2020, 14:44:13 Alexandre Gigleux wrote:`
Export comments and rspec-to-rspec links from jira 2021-06-02 20:44:38 +02:00			`I change the type from Vulnerability to Code Smell after discussing with AppSec bubble and the fact the same decision was taken for RSPEC-1104.`