== Why is this an issue?

Overriding a parent class' method implementation with an ``++abstract++`` method is a terrible practice for a number of reasons:

* it blocks invocation of the original class' method by children of the ``++abstract++`` class.
* it requires the ``++abstract++`` class' children to re-implement (copy/paste?) the original class' logic.
* it violates the inherited contract.


=== Noncompliant code example

[source,java]
----
public class Parent {
  public int getNumber() {
    return 1;
  }
}

public abstract class AbstractChild {
  abstract public int getNumber();  // Noncompliant
}
----


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

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

=== Message

Remove this "abstract" method override.


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

=== 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.

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