Hi @Lena,
thank you for your reply. Your example indeed illustrates why the current rule implementation is useful. I agree with you that your first version is easier to read, easier to understand and with a proper comment it should be clear why the empty branch has no implementation.
I fear, however, that it is too easy to subvert the rule’s intention by simply adding a useless comment like //. This might be case which should be detected by code review, though.
Another risk are comments indicating that an implementation is planned after a certain event occurred: // trigger update when service is implemented.
You probably discussed these cases, when the rule was specified?
Since we agree, that an empty else-branch is unnecessary, even with a comment, could the rule be adapted to always report this case?
Would you accept a pull request modifying the rule to a) report else-branches even with comments and/or b) make the check for comments optional?