SONARJAVA-5985 Improve S6207's logic for constructors

[aurelien-coet-sonarsource]

No description provided.

[hashicorp-vault-sonar-prod]

SONARJAVA-5985

[asya-vorobeva]

• IIUC, we are currently give up to apply the rule in cases like

record Record(String name) {
    Record(String name, String alias) {
        //some logic with name / alias
       this(name);
    }
}

Is it intentional? Do we plan to improve it in the future?

• Don't forget to update RSpec (we change messages for this rule).

[aurelien-coet-sonarsource]

• IIUC, we are currently give up to apply the rule in cases like

record Record(String name) {
    Record(String name, String alias) {
        //some logic with name / alias
       this(name);
    }
}

Is it intentional? Do we plan to improve it in the future?

• Don't forget to update RSpec (we change messages for this rule).

Yes, it is intentional because we only want to raise an issue on the exact equivalent of a default constructor. Here the custom constructor doesn't match the default one because it has two parameters instead of only one for name.

There is nothing to update in RSpec because it doesn't include the messages that are raised for the issue, and the description already matches the behaviour implemented here (the previous implementation actually didn't match RSpec).

[asya-vorobeva]

LGTM

[sonarqube-next]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Fixed issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0 Dependency risks
94.4% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube