NET-913 Modify rule S1264: Improve description to match the implementation

[sebastien-marichal]

NET-913

Part of NET-255

Fixes SonarSource/sonar-dotnet#8249

Review

A dedicated reviewer checked the rule description successfully for:

• logical errors and incorrect information
• information gaps and missing content
• text style and tone
• PR summary and labels follow the guidelines

[sonarqube-next]

Quality Gate passed for 'rspec-tools'

Issues
0 New issues
0 Fixed issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
No data about Coverage
No data about Duplication

See analysis details on SonarQube

[sonarqube-next]

Quality Gate passed for 'rspec-frontend'

Issues
0 New issues
0 Fixed issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
No data about Coverage
No data about Duplication

See analysis details on SonarQube

[CristianAmbrosini]

Is the message correct? the initializer section should contain a variable declaration
Shouldn't it be the initializer section should contain an increment statement?

[sebastien-marichal]

The initializer section here contains only an initialization without a variable declaration.
The increment section is missing in this example.
The wording could be better

[CristianAmbrosini]

Is the rule reporting also for missing variable declarations?
ie:

var i;
for (i = 0; i <100; i++) { }

[sebastien-marichal]

Not it won't, for now it is checking if both the initializer and the increment section are valid.

[CristianAmbrosini]

Then // Noncompliant; the initializer section should contain a variable declaration is not a good comment. It shouldn't raise for that and it's not why the rule is raising in that case, it's just the missing incrementer. Do I miss something?

[sebastien-marichal]

It does raise because of the missing declaration.
If there were a variable declaration, the rule won't raise even though there is no incrementer.

The condition for the rule to raise is:

• missing initialization section
• and, missing increment section

In the rule we check if there is a variable declaration.
So if the content of the initialization section is not a declaration and the increment section is empty, we raise the rule.

[sebastien-marichal]

I think I will drop this example, it brings more confusion than it helps to understand the rule.
I have added in the description the following:

The initializer section should contain a variable declaration to be considered as a valid initialization.

And I think this should be enough for this case then.

[CristianAmbrosini]

LGTM!