Fail test execution if Input file does nor have message on violation line and Check has not signle message

[romani]

it become clear at #11051 (comment)
that we do need to enforce it.

TODO:
if Check has not single message, and Input file contain //violation marker in it, we should fail validation and advice user to specify message in addition.

[Vyom-Yadav]

On it.

[Vyom-Yadav]

@romani What is expected for-

• // X violations
• // X violations above
• // X violations below

As in these, we cannot specify the message.

Edit- I was thinking if there are X violations you need to have X messages-

// 2 violations 'first violation' 'second violation'

Generalizing-

// X violations 'first violation' 'second violation'.....'Xth violation'

[Vyom-Yadav]

Also, there is another problem if you have multiple checks in an input file example.
There is no way to tell whether a violation from a file belongs to checkOne or checkTwo, we parse line by line and verify them later line by line.

/*
CheckOne config

CheckTwo config


*/

public class Test {
    int a = 12; // violation
}

Currently there is no way to tell int a = 12; // violation is a violation due to checkOne or checkTwo

[Vyom-Yadav]

@romani Just had a thought, if we have multiple checks in a config file then it is a must to specify violation message irrespective of the number of error messages in the check as it would improve the readibility of violations, what do you think?

[romani]

As in these, we cannot specify the message.

not yet :) , and yes, your proposal is good.
It might be challange to fit few messages in same line, but we might find a way.
We can relax our validation to not demand messages if any of such trailing comments are present.

[romani]

if you have multiple checks in an input file

lets skip such cases completely from validation.
If two Checks are defined - no need to demand message. We will think on this later on.