rspec/rules/S2970/comments-and-links.adoc

=== is duplicated by: S2858

=== on 22 May 2015, 15:49:59 Ann Campbell wrote:
Thanks for this nearly-complete "stub", [~massimo.paladin]. 


Now I'm going to ask you to work some more :-)

Could you add a code snipped to illustrated the exception? I don't quite understand it as-is, and I'm afraid others won't either.

=== on 26 May 2015, 12:22:21 Massimo PALADIN wrote:
\[~ann.campbell.2] I added a code snippet to the exceptions section, back to you for verification.

=== on 26 May 2015, 14:00:08 Ann Campbell wrote:
This looks great [~massimo.paladin], thanks!

=== on 29 May 2015, 12:12:20 Dinesh Bolkensteyn wrote:
\[~ann.campbell.2] I'm increasing the severity to CRITICAL with the agreement of [~mpaladin]: These issues must be fixed immediately - else you might ship broken code

=== on 29 May 2015, 12:15:21 Ann Campbell wrote:
Okay [~dinesh.bolkensteyn].

=== on 19 Mar 2019, 16:29:04 Jeffrey Naisbitt wrote:
This rule appears to have a bug/false-positive when using AssertJ's SoftAssertion feature.  AssertJ has a static method (SoftAssertions.assertSoftly) that calls assertAll() after its soft assertions.  Therefore, this case should not trigger the rule violation indicating 'assertAll' is needed:


 

----
import org.assertj.core.api.SoftAssertions;
import org.junit.Test;

public class Rule2970 {

  @Test 
  public void test() {
    SoftAssertions.assertSoftly(softly -> {
      softly.assertThat(true).isTrue();
      softly.assertThat(false).isFalse();
    });
  } // False-positive here: squid:S2970: "Add a call to 'assertAll' after all 'assertThat'."
}
----