== Why is this an issue?

While some ``++TestRule++`` classes have the desired effect without ever being directly referenced by a test, several others do not, and there's no reason to leave them cluttering up the file if they're not in use.


This rule raises an issue when ``++Test++`` class fields of the following types aren't used by any of the test methods: ``++TemporaryFolder++``, and ``++TestName++``.

This rule also applies to the JUnit 5 equivalent classes: ``++TempDir++``, and ``++TestInfo++``.


=== Noncompliant code example

[source,java]
----
public class ProjectDefinitionTest {

  @Rule
  public TemporaryFolder temp = new TemporaryFolder();  // Noncompliant

  @Test
  public void shouldSetKey() {
    ProjectDefinition def = ProjectDefinition.create();
    def.setKey("mykey");
    assertThat(def.getKey(), is("mykey"));
  }
}
----


=== Compliant solution

[source,java]
----
public class ProjectDefinitionTest {

  @Test
  public void shouldSetKey() {
    ProjectDefinition def = ProjectDefinition.create();
    def.setKey("mykey");
    assertThat(def.getKey(), is("mykey"));
  }
}
----



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

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

=== Message

Remove this unused "TestRule".


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

=== on 12 May 2015, 14:25:37 Ann Campbell wrote:
\[~david.gageot] this may not be as broad as you wanted...?


Also, I'm not quite sure about the impact of the @Rule annotation, so I didn't mention it in the description but left it in the code sample you provided. What happens if the annotation is missing?

=== on 12 May 2015, 14:54:12 David Gageot wrote:
If the annotation is missing, it will not do anything either. So this is really dead code

=== on 12 May 2015, 14:54:16 David Gageot wrote:
lgtm

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