Bad example in Java rule description for "Abstract class names should comply with a naming convention"


I’ve found an error in the description of the “Abstract class names should comply with a naming convention” Java rule.

There it’s shown this example as a compliant solution:

abstract class MyAbstractClass {

But this is wrong, because it’s not compliant with the regular expression


Is this the right place for reporting the issue?


Hello @Vecchione, and welcome to the community!

The rule behave correctly, but the description is indeed incorrect, thanks for spotting this inconsistency.

I updated the description of the rule accordingly, the change will be part of the next release.