rspec/rules/S4972/swift/rule.adoc

== Why is this an issue?

When a method doesn't match it's ``++super++`` method in visibility (``++public++``, ``++protected++``, ...), malicious callers could take advantage of the over-broad access offered by the child class to undermine the application.


=== Noncompliant code example

[source,swift]
----
public class Parent {

  protected void foo() {
    //...
  }
}

public class Child extends Parent {

  public void foo() {  // Noncompliant
    // ...
    super.foo();
  }
}
----


=== Compliant solution

[source,swift]
----
public class Parent {

  protected void foo() {
    //...
  }
}

public class Child extends Parent {

  protected void foo() {
    // ...
    super.foo();
  }
}
----


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

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

=== Message

* Decrease the accessibility of this method to "xxx" to match the parent class implementation.


=== Highlighting

* visibility modifier


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

=== on 31 Oct 2018, 11:57:13 Tibor Blenessy wrote:
This rule was forked from RSPEC-3551 to allow RSPEC-3551 to focus only on synchronization which is Java specific concept and real bug. I am actually not really sure about the value of this rule, that's why it is not included in the default profile. However, I am really sure about the value of RSPEC-3551 so I wanted to remove this fuzzy part from it.

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