FP on Cobol:S1728 (Alignment of data-item declarations) (AcuCobol)

Hi Jos,

Sorry for the late reply.

You’re right, that’s a false positive that we should fix.

I guess you mean 66, 77, 78 and 88.
Out of those 4:

  • We don’t raise issues with levels 66 and 77.
  • I believe that it makes sense for the rule to raise an issue when several 88-level condition names are associated with the same variable and are not aligned.

In the end, I think that we have to change the behavior only for level 78.
Please tell me if I missed something.
I created SONARCOBOL-1675 to track this problem.

Thanks a lot for your feedback!

Pierre-Yves