The Security Technical Implementation Guide security standard is being
renamed from its release date (`2023-06-08`) to its official version and
revision number (`V5R3`). This helps to align with the version number
being used internally for reporting purposes.
The PRs #3365, #3374, #3386, #3391 and #3392 were merged before
implementation. This reverts them, to be merged only once implemented.
## Review
A dedicated reviewer checked the rule description successfully for:
- [ ] logical errors and incorrect information
- [ ] information gaps and missing content
- [ ] text style and tone
- [ ] PR summary and labels follow [the
guidelines](https://github.com/SonarSource/rspec/#to-modify-an-existing-rule)
## Review
A dedicated reviewer checked the rule description successfully for:
- [ ] logical errors and incorrect information
- [ ] information gaps and missing content
- [ ] text style and tone
- [ ] PR summary and labels follow [the
guidelines](https://github.com/SonarSource/rspec/#to-modify-an-existing-rule)
Improvement identified in #2790.
Add a prefix to the diff-id when it is used multiple times in different
"how to fix it in XYZ" sections to avoid ambiguity and pedantically
follow the spec:
> A single and unique diff-id should be used only once for each type of
code example as shown in the description of a rule.
Obvious typos around `diff-type` were fixed.
An obvious extra use of diff blocks was removed.
Improvement identified in #2790.
Add a prefix to the diff-id when it is used multiple times in different
"how to fix it in XYZ" sections to avoid ambiguity and pedantically
follow the spec:
> A single and unique diff-id should be used only once for each type of
code example as shown in the description of a rule.
Obvious typos around `diff-type` were fixed.
When an include is not surrounded by empty lines, its content is inlined
on the same line as the adjacent content. That can lead to broken tags
and other display issues.
This PR fixes all such includes and introduces a validation step that
forbids introducing the same problem again.
Fixing a typo in the noncompliant code example. I think this is now
right, but please double-check me.
## Review
A dedicated reviewer checked the rule description successfully for:
- [x] logical errors and incorrect information
- [x] information gaps and missing content
- [x] text style and tone
