rspec/rules/S1845/rule.adoc
2023-08-04 16:47:57 +02:00

62 lines
1.8 KiB
Plaintext

This rule raises an issue when there is a method and a field in a class with names that differ only by capitalization.
== Why is this an issue?
Looking at the set of methods in a class, including superclass methods, and finding two methods or fields that differ only by capitalization is confusing to users of the class. It is similarly confusing to have a method and a field which differ only in capitalization or a method and a field with exactly the same name and visibility.
In the case of methods, it may have been a mistake on the part of the original developer, who intended to override a superclass method, but instead added a new method with nearly the same name.
Otherwise, this situation simply indicates poor naming. Method names should be action-oriented, and thus contain a verb, which is unlikely in the case where both a method and a member have the same name (with or without capitalization differences). However, renaming a public method could be disruptive to callers. Therefore renaming the member is the recommended action.
=== Code examples
==== Noncompliant code example
[source,text,diff-id=1,diff-type=noncompliant]
----
public class Car{
public DriveTrain drive;
public void tearDown(){...}
public void drive() {...} // Noncompliant; duplicates field name
}
public class MyCar extends Car{
public void teardown(){...} // Noncompliant; not an override. It it really what's intended?
public void drivefast(){...}
public void driveFast(){...} //Huh?
}
----
==== Compliant solution
[source,text,diff-id=1,diff-type=compliant]
----
public class Car{
private DriveTrain drive;
public void tearDown(){...}
public void drive() {...} // field visibility reduced
}
public class MyCar extends Car{
@Override
public void tearDown(){...}
public void drivefast(){...}
public void driveReallyFast(){...}
}
----