Add Swift rules from ecocode-ios

[gaelfoppolo]

Summary

This PR adds the Swift rules implemented in ecoCode-iOS repository.

[dedece35]

your point of view @jycr ???

[dedece35]

Hi @gaelfoppolo,
like I said in #226, I think we have to wait the merge of #209 before merging this current PR.
make this PR as draft.

[github-actions]

This PR has been automatically marked as stale because it has no activity for 30 days.
Please add a comment if you want to keep the issue open. Thank you for your contributions!

[gaelfoppolo]

It seems #209 was merged. Can someone re-review?

[zippy1978]

@jycr , @dedece35 ,
It seems the rules added in the PR are already on the main branch.
Can you confirm we can close it without merging ? (and then start pointing to the new rule repository from the ios plugin)

[dedece35]

only one thing to approve this PR : add a CHANGELOG.md modification to explain this PR, please

[dedece35]

@jycr , @dedece35 , It seems the rules added in the PR are already on the main branch. Can you confirm we can close it without merging ? (and then start pointing to the new rule repository from the ios plugin)

@zippy1978, after checking th main branch, no, these rules don't exist already in "ecocode-rules-specifications" directory. Thus, for me, this PR must be merged, once my modification request done.

[jycr]

I don't think it's useful to set this property.

Additionally, JSON in rule folder level is supposed to be language agnostic.
For language specificities, it would be necessary to be able to manage a JSON override with a JSON file placed in the corresponding subfolder language directory.

The ability to overload JSON metadata is currently not implemented (but could be if necessary).

[gaelfoppolo]

To be honest, I followed the template of the others rules at the time (late August) and almost all of them had this property and still are (eg: EC11, EC12, etc.).

So what should I do, remove or leave it?

[jycr]

OK, leave it like that.
We improve metadata in future commits if needed

[gaelfoppolo]

@jycr , @dedece35 , It seems the rules added in the PR are already on the main branch. Can you confirm we can close it without merging ? (and then start pointing to the new rule repository from the ios plugin)

@zippy1978, after checking th main branch, no, these rules don't exist already in "ecocode-rules-specifications" directory. Thus, for me, this PR must be merged, once my modification request done.

I double-checked and here the matching I've got (also with some inconsistencies):

• EC19 is redundant with EC524 (which itself is buggy since JSON and ASCIIDoc don't match)
• EC21 is redundant with EC524 (which itself is buggy since JSON and ASCIIDoc don't match)
• EC19 and EC21 are also redundant with EC522 (which itself is buggy since JSON and ASCIIDoc don't match)
• EC18 is redundant with EC521
• EC15 is redundant with EC506 (which itself is buggy since JSON and ASCIIDoc don't match)
• EC14 is redundant with EC505 (which itself is buggy since JSON and ASCIIDoc don't match)
• EC16 is redundant with EC602 (which itself doesn't even have a JSON)
• EC20 is redundant with EC547 (which itself is buggy since JSON and ASCIIDoc don't match)
• EC17 is redundant with EC543

[gaelfoppolo]

only one thing to approve this PR : add a CHANGELOG.md modification to explain this PR, please

Done!

[dedece35]

@jycr , @dedece35 , It seems the rules added in the PR are already on the main branch. Can you confirm we can close it without merging ? (and then start pointing to the new rule repository from the ios plugin)

@zippy1978, after checking th main branch, no, these rules don't exist already in "ecocode-rules-specifications" directory. Thus, for me, this PR must be merged, once my modification request done.

I double-checked and here the matching I've got (also with some inconsistencies):

• EC19 is redundant with EC524 (which itself is buggy since JSON and ASCIIDoc don't match)
• EC21 is redundant with EC524 (which itself is buggy since JSON and ASCIIDoc don't match)
• EC19 and EC21 are also redundant with EC522 (which itself is buggy since JSON and ASCIIDoc don't match)
• EC18 is redundant with EC521
• EC15 is redundant with EC506 (which itself is buggy since JSON and ASCIIDoc don't match)
• EC14 is redundant with EC505 (which itself is buggy since JSON and ASCIIDoc don't match)
• EC16 is redundant with EC602 (which itself doesn't even have a JSON)
• EC20 is redundant with EC547 (which itself is buggy since JSON and ASCIIDoc don't match)
• EC17 is redundant with EC543

@gaelfoppolo thank you for these observations, good job.
@zippy1978, please check redunduncy and what we have to do with them.

[dedece35]

@jycr ... your recent point of view ?

[sonarqubecloud]

Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!   

0 Bugs
0 Vulnerabilities
0 Security Hotspots
0 Code Smells

No Coverage information
No Duplication information