== Why is this an issue?

When the code under test in a unit test throws an exception, the test itself fails. Therefore, there is no need to surround the tested code with a ``++try++``-``++catch++`` structure to detect failure. Instead, you can simply move the exception type to the method signature. 


This rule raises an issue when there is a fail assertion inside a ``++catch++`` block.


Supported frameworks:

* JUnit3
* JUnit4
* JUnit5
* Fest assert
* AssertJ

=== Noncompliant code example

[source,java]
----
@Test
public void testMethod() {
  try {
            // Some code
  } catch (MyException e) {
    Assert.fail(e.getMessage());  // Noncompliant
  }
}
----


=== Compliant solution

[source,java]
----
@Test
public void testMethod() throws MyException {
    // Some code
}
----


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

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

=== Message

Remove this failure assertion and simply add the exception type to the method signature.


=== Highlighting

* Primary: ``++Assert.fail++``
* Secondary: ``++try++`` and ``++catch (...)++``


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

=== is related to: S3431

=== on 27 Jun 2016, 22:53:57 Alix Lourme wrote:
@[~ann.campbell.2] : I will update the https://github.com/SonarSource/sonar-java/pull/902[PR] with your last modifications ASAP (I need update an https://github.com/SonarSource/orchestrator/pull/1[orchestrator PR] before) ; but IMO a remediation cost to 1min (perhaps 2) would be better than 5 (this is a default very quick to fix).

=== on 29 Jun 2016, 21:30:35 Ann Campbell wrote:
Just now saw this [~axel3rd]. Remediation updated to 2min.

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