-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.6k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Create new check RecordComponentName #8765
Labels
Milestone
Comments
The record components are both fields and parameters. If the naming policy for fields and parameters differs, we have an inconsistency for record component names. A dedicated check will solve this issue. |
strkkk
added a commit
to strkkk/checkstyle
that referenced
this issue
Jan 13, 2021
strkkk
added a commit
to strkkk/checkstyle
that referenced
this issue
Jan 13, 2021
strkkk
added a commit
to strkkk/checkstyle
that referenced
this issue
Jan 18, 2021
strkkk
added a commit
to strkkk/checkstyle
that referenced
this issue
Jan 19, 2021
rnveach
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jan 24, 2021
Fixed merged |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
From #8764:
I would expect there to be a check that allows users to enfore naming conventions on record components; there should be an ability to specify a
format
property, similar toMemberNameCheck
(after all, record components are essentially member variables). Simply adding support for record components toMemberNameCheck
is not a good solution, since there are many other properties inMemberNameCheck
that do not apply here.Do we need another new check,
RecordComponentName
?We have LambdaParameterName, MemberName, and ParameterName. Since record components are basically "members", we should make it possible for users to enforce naming conventions on them.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: