46 lines
1.6 KiB
Plaintext
46 lines
1.6 KiB
Plaintext
=== is duplicated by: S2858
|
||
|
||
=== on 22 May 2015, 15:49:59 Ann Campbell wrote:
|
||
Thanks for this nearly-complete "stub", [~massimo.paladin].
|
||
|
||
|
||
Now I'm going to ask you to work some more :-)
|
||
|
||
Could you add a code snipped to illustrated the exception? I don't quite understand it as-is, and I'm afraid others won't either.
|
||
|
||
=== on 26 May 2015, 12:22:21 Massimo PALADIN wrote:
|
||
\[~ann.campbell.2] I added a code snippet to the exceptions section, back to you for verification.
|
||
|
||
=== on 26 May 2015, 14:00:08 Ann Campbell wrote:
|
||
This looks great [~massimo.paladin], thanks!
|
||
|
||
=== on 29 May 2015, 12:12:20 Dinesh Bolkensteyn wrote:
|
||
\[~ann.campbell.2] I'm increasing the severity to CRITICAL with the agreement of [~mpaladin]: These issues must be fixed immediately - else you might ship broken code
|
||
|
||
=== on 29 May 2015, 12:15:21 Ann Campbell wrote:
|
||
Okay [~dinesh.bolkensteyn].
|
||
|
||
=== on 19 Mar 2019, 16:29:04 Jeffrey Naisbitt wrote:
|
||
This rule appears to have a bug/false-positive when using AssertJ's SoftAssertion feature. AssertJ has a static method (SoftAssertions.assertSoftly) that calls assertAll() after its soft assertions. Therefore, this case should not trigger the rule violation indicating 'assertAll' is needed:
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
----
|
||
import org.assertj.core.api.SoftAssertions;
|
||
import org.junit.Test;
|
||
|
||
public class Rule2970 {
|
||
|
||
@Test
|
||
public void test() {
|
||
SoftAssertions.assertSoftly(softly -> {
|
||
softly.assertThat(true).isTrue();
|
||
softly.assertThat(false).isFalse();
|
||
});
|
||
} // False-positive here: squid:S2970: "Add a call to 'assertAll' after all 'assertThat'."
|
||
}
|
||
----
|
||
|
||
|