Issue #14625: fix noinspectionreason for TestMethodWithoutAssertion

[MANISH-K-07]

Resolves #14625

TestMethodWithoutAssertion inspection is a permanent suppression for XdocsJavaDocsTest & XdocsPagesTest.

Reason being same as for inspection JUnitTestMethodWithNoAssertions.

     * @noinspectionreason JUnitTestMethodWithNoAssertions - asserts in callstack,
     *      but not in this method

Ideally, in this case, both inspections function the same, I believe.

<problems is_local_tool="true">
<problem>
<file>file://$PROJECT_DIR$/src/test/java/com/puppycrawl/tools/checkstyle/internal/XdocsJavaDocsTest.java</file>
<line>134</line>
<module>project</module>
<package>com.puppycrawl.tools.checkstyle.internal</package>
<entry_point TYPE="method" FQNAME="com.puppycrawl.tools.checkstyle.internal.XdocsJavaDocsTest void testAllCheckSectionJavaDocs()"/>
<problem_class id="TestMethodWithoutAssertion" severity="ERROR" attribute_key="ERRORS_ATTRIBUTES">Test method without assertions</problem_class>
<description>Test method <code>testAllCheckSectionJavaDocs()</code> contains no assertions #loc</description>
<highlighted_element>testAllCheckSectionJavaDocs</highlighted_element>
<language>JAVA</language>
<offset>16</offset>
<length>27</length>
</problem>

<problem>
<file>file://$PROJECT_DIR$/src/test/java/com/puppycrawl/tools/checkstyle/internal/XdocsPagesTest.java</file>
<line>594</line>
<module>project</module>
<package>com.puppycrawl.tools.checkstyle.internal</package>
<entry_point TYPE="method" FQNAME="com.puppycrawl.tools.checkstyle.internal.XdocsPagesTest void testAllCheckSectionsEx()"/>
<problem_class id="TestMethodWithoutAssertion" severity="ERROR" attribute_key="ERRORS_ATTRIBUTES">Test method without assertions</problem_class>
<description>Test method <code>testAllCheckSectionsEx()</code> contains no assertions #loc</description>
<highlighted_element>testAllCheckSectionsEx</highlighted_element>
<language>JAVA</language>
<offset>16</offset>
<length>22</length>
</problem>
</problems>

[romani]

Question

[romani]

We already have similar rule in some other tools, can you recheck if we suppressed this already for other tools maybe pmd or ....

[MANISH-K-07]

@romani , pmd yes....

checkstyle/config/pmd-test.xml

Lines 107 to 110 in bb56e9d

	| //ClassOrInterfaceDeclaration[@SimpleName='XdocsPagesTest']
	//MethodDeclaration[@Name='testAllChecksPresentOnAvailableChecksPage']
	| //ClassOrInterfaceDeclaration[@SimpleName='XdocsJavaDocsTest']
	//MethodDeclaration[@Name='testAllCheckSectionJavaDocs']

[MANISH-K-07]

@romani , ping please.

[romani]

Can it help if we rename examineCheckSection to assertCheckSection ? May be we can extend config to register this method name as asset.

[MANISH-K-07]

Can it help if we rename examineCheckSection to assertCheckSection ? May be we can extend config to register this method name as asset.

theoretically, It should, but we would be extending config just for satisfying 2 methods

@romani , just pointing out, we have our methods named in chains.
examineCheckSection is followed by examineCheckSectionChildren and again examineCheckSubSection

checkstyle/src/test/java/com/puppycrawl/tools/checkstyle/internal/XdocsJavaDocsTest.java

Line 165 in 1fc5987

private static void examineCheckSection(ModuleFactory moduleFactory, String fileName,

checkstyle/src/test/java/com/puppycrawl/tools/checkstyle/internal/XdocsJavaDocsTest.java

Line 190 in 1fc5987

private static void examineCheckSectionChildren(Node section) {

checkstyle/src/test/java/com/puppycrawl/tools/checkstyle/internal/XdocsJavaDocsTest.java

Line 206 in 1fc5987

private static void examineCheckSubSection(Node subSection, String subSectionName) {

Do we really want to extend our config to new method and hack all these just to workaround for one inspection that won't even impact users as much?

Please do correct me if I'm wrong, I don't mean to cross your suggestion 😃

[MANISH-K-07]

@romani , ping please.

[romani]

examineCheckSection is actually do assert by execution of
checker.process(files);

All Junit asserts are Custom Check that helps to parse java files.
We can add assert for checker to have no violations or errors after execution to testAllCheckSectionJavaDocs() as it is a field of class, so no suppression will be required.

[romani]

Ques

[romani]

Can it help if we rename examineCheckSection to assertCheckSection ? May be we can extend config to register this method name as asset.

[MANISH-K-07]

@romani , please see post above at #14812 (comment)

[MANISH-K-07]

@romani , could you please assign this PR to yourself while we discuss how to proceed..

[romani]

@MANISH-K-07, ping, please find time to finish this PR.