rspec/rules/S3925/comments-and-links.adoc

=== on 16 Mar 2017, 12:11:37 Ann Campbell wrote:
\[~amaury.leve] I've edited. Please double-check me.


Also, examples for each noncompliant case aren't necessary IMO. I'd show only one or two particularly damaging or particularly subtle examples.

=== on 24 Mar 2017, 16:05:50 Valeri Hristov wrote:
The following check is not implemented because it is difficult to know exactly which fields should be marked with ``++NonSerialized++`` and I am afraid it will generate too many FPs:

* Non-serializable fields are not marked with the ``++System.NonSerializedAttribute++`` attribute.

We find mostly classes that derive from Exception in the projects we test and that's why they might not be a good source for checking issues and false positives (statistically).
Fix the comment display: rule-id, timestamp, GH visibility, link direction 2021-06-03 09:05:38 +02:00			`=== on 16 Mar 2017, 12:11:37 Ann Campbell wrote:`
Export comments and rspec-to-rspec links from jira 2021-06-02 20:44:38 +02:00			`\[~amaury.leve] I've edited. Please double-check me.`


			`Also, examples for each noncompliant case aren't necessary IMO. I'd show only one or two particularly damaging or particularly subtle examples.`

Fix the comment display: rule-id, timestamp, GH visibility, link direction 2021-06-03 09:05:38 +02:00			`=== on 24 Mar 2017, 16:05:50 Valeri Hristov wrote:`
Export comments and rspec-to-rspec links from jira 2021-06-02 20:44:38 +02:00			The following check is not implemented because it is difficult to know exactly which fields should be marked with ``++NonSerialized++`` and I am afraid it will generate too many FPs:

			* Non-serializable fields are not marked with the ``++System.NonSerializedAttribute++`` attribute.

			`We find mostly classes that derive from Exception in the projects we test and that's why they might not be a good source for checking issues and false positives (statistically).`