[test] Rule tests don't handle Rule configuration errors
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Java
- Stars
- 5.5k
- Forks
- 1.6k
- Avg merge
- 1d 19h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 54
Description
This is because they directly use a SourceCodeProcessor, but the pruning of dysfunctional rules is made by an AbstractPmdProcessor, e.g. MonoThreadProcessor. (The API for executing PMD programmatically is confusing and could benefit from a rethink).
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start by tracing the rule tests that use SourceCodeProcessor, then compare that path with AbstractPmdProcessor and MonoThreadProcessor, where dysfunctional-rule pruning occurs. Determine how configuration errors should be represented in the tests and verify the behavior through the relevant test suite. Done means rule configuration errors are covered without bypassing the processor behavior that prunes dysfunctional rules.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- java
- Domain
- testing-qa, tooling
- Issue type
- Bug
- Difficulty
- 4/5
- Estimated time
- 3-5 days
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 30/100