rspec/rules/S2486/comments-and-links.adoc

=== deprecates: S1674

=== is duplicated by: S1169

=== relates to: S1166

=== is related to: S2002

=== on 19 Jul 2016, 12:19:12 Evgeny Mandrikov wrote:
\[~ann.campbell.2] there is sub-task for "Java", but it is not in "Targeted" or "Covered" languages - probably because of comment \https://jira.sonarsource.com/browse/RSPEC-1674?focusedCommentId=20875#comment-20875 


And thus I'm wondering - if {cpp} should be targeted here or not, in preference to RSPEC-108 ?

=== on 19 Jul 2016, 19:28:16 Ann Campbell wrote:
My preference would be to handle empty catch blocks here [~evgeny.mandrikov]. Other than a gut feeling, my main justification is that mangled error handling has security implications.

(cc [~nicolas.peru])

=== on 21 Jul 2016, 22:49:09 Evgeny Mandrikov wrote:
\[~ann.campbell.2] okay, scheduled for implementation - CPP-1444
Fix the comment display: rule-id, timestamp, GH visibility, link direction 2021-06-03 09:05:38 +02:00			`=== deprecates: S1674`
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 duplicated by: S1169`
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			`=== relates to: S1166`
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: S2002`
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 19 Jul 2016, 12:19:12 Evgeny Mandrikov wrote:`
Export comments and rspec-to-rspec links from jira 2021-06-02 20:44:38 +02:00			`\[~ann.campbell.2] there is sub-task for "Java", but it is not in "Targeted" or "Covered" languages - probably because of comment \https://jira.sonarsource.com/browse/RSPEC-1674?focusedCommentId=20875#comment-20875`


			`And thus I'm wondering - if {cpp} should be targeted here or not, in preference to RSPEC-108 ?`

Fix the comment display: rule-id, timestamp, GH visibility, link direction 2021-06-03 09:05:38 +02:00			`=== on 19 Jul 2016, 19:28:16 Ann Campbell wrote:`
Export comments and rspec-to-rspec links from jira 2021-06-02 20:44:38 +02:00			`My preference would be to handle empty catch blocks here [~evgeny.mandrikov]. Other than a gut feeling, my main justification is that mangled error handling has security implications.`

			`(cc [~nicolas.peru])`

Fix the comment display: rule-id, timestamp, GH visibility, link direction 2021-06-03 09:05:38 +02:00			`=== on 21 Jul 2016, 22:49:09 Evgeny Mandrikov wrote:`
Export comments and rspec-to-rspec links from jira 2021-06-02 20:44:38 +02:00			`\[~ann.campbell.2] okay, scheduled for implementation - CPP-1444`