rspec/rules/S5863/java/rule.adoc
Fred Tingaud 51369b610e
Make sure that includes are always surrounded by empty lines (#2270)
When an include is not surrounded by empty lines, its content is inlined
on the same line as the adjacent content. That can lead to broken tags
and other display issues.
This PR fixes all such includes and introduces a validation step that
forbids introducing the same problem again.
2023-06-22 10:38:01 +02:00

64 lines
1.5 KiB
Plaintext

== Why is this an issue?
Assertions comparing an object to itself are more likely to be bugs due to developer's carelessness.
This rule raises an issue when the actual expression matches the expected expression.
=== Noncompliant code example
[source,java]
----
assertThat(actual).isEqualTo(actual); // Noncompliant
----
=== Compliant solution
[source,java]
----
assertThat(actual).isEqualTo(expected);
----
=== Exceptions
In a unit test validating the ``++equals(...)++`` and ``++hashCode()++`` methods, it's legitimate to compare an object to itself. This rule does not raise an issue for ``++isEqualTo++``, ``++assertEquals++`` or ``++hasSameHashCodeAs++`` when the unit test name contains (case insensitive): ``++equal++``, ``++hash_?code++``, ``++object_?method++``. For example, in tests with the following names: ``++test_equals++``, ``++testEqual++``, ``++test_hashCode++``, ``++test_hash_code++``, ``++test_object_methods++``.
[source,java]
----
class MyClassTest {
@Test
void test_equals_and_hash_code() {
MyClass obj = new MyClass();
assertThat(obj).isEqualTo(obj); // Compliant
assertThat(obj).hasSameHashCodeAs(obj); // Compliant
}
}
----
ifdef::env-github,rspecator-view[]
'''
== Implementation Specification
(visible only on this page)
=== Message
Replace this assertion to not have the same actual and expected expression.
=== Highlighting
Primary: expected expression
Secondary: actual expression
'''
== Comments And Links
(visible only on this page)
include::../comments-and-links.adoc[]
endif::env-github,rspecator-view[]