rspec/rules/S3058/java/comments-and-links.adoc

=== on 12 Jun 2015, 15:34:57 Ann Campbell wrote:
CodePro: Overriding a Non-abstract Method with an Abstract Method

=== on 12 Jun 2015, 15:50:29 Ann Campbell wrote:
\[~nicolas.peru] I'm wondering if I should have rolled this into RSPEC-2177, altho I'm a bit reluctant to roll something that deserves a "dope-slap" tag (this one) into something that's mainly an "oops".

WDYT?

=== on 15 Jun 2015, 20:21:21 Nicolas Peru wrote:
This one looks good and intent is fairly different: RSPEC-2177 detects abused overloading whereas this one clearly indicates a bad design. As you point it out, severity is definitely not the same.
Fix the comment display: rule-id, timestamp, GH visibility, link direction 2021-06-03 09:05:38 +02:00			`=== on 12 Jun 2015, 15:34:57 Ann Campbell wrote:`
Export comments and rspec-to-rspec links from jira 2021-06-02 20:44:38 +02:00			`CodePro: Overriding a Non-abstract Method with an Abstract Method`

Fix the comment display: rule-id, timestamp, GH visibility, link direction 2021-06-03 09:05:38 +02:00			`=== on 12 Jun 2015, 15:50:29 Ann Campbell wrote:`
Export comments and rspec-to-rspec links from jira 2021-06-02 20:44:38 +02:00			`\[~nicolas.peru] I'm wondering if I should have rolled this into RSPEC-2177, altho I'm a bit reluctant to roll something that deserves a "dope-slap" tag (this one) into something that's mainly an "oops".`

			`WDYT?`

Fix the comment display: rule-id, timestamp, GH visibility, link direction 2021-06-03 09:05:38 +02:00			`=== on 15 Jun 2015, 20:21:21 Nicolas Peru wrote:`
Export comments and rspec-to-rspec links from jira 2021-06-02 20:44:38 +02:00			`This one looks good and intent is fairly different: RSPEC-2177 detects abused overloading whereas this one clearly indicates a bad design. As you point it out, severity is definitely not the same.`