The noncompliant example for S1607 is actually compliant

It says

This rule raises an issue for each ignored test that does not have a WorkItem attribute nor a comment about why it is being skipped on the right side of the Ignore attribute.

this is non compliant example

[Ignore]  // Noncompliant
public void Test_DoTheThing()
  // ...

The presence of the comment following the [Ignore] makes this technically compliant. I had to read this a few times since it also mentioned workitem and the compliant example has some JIRA looking workitem number, I wasn’t sure if there was some workitem number formatting that needed to be present or not, until I looked at a few places where I had to apply this attribute and have a free form comment following it and they arent reporting as issues.

1 Like

Hi @StingyJack,

thanks for your feedback. For this specific example our convention did not fit very well :slight_smile:

I’ve did the change and the rule specification update will be available starting with the next version.

1 Like