PMD rule CallSuperInConstructor makes no sense

[golszewski86]

PMD rule CallSuperInConstructor requires an explicit call to superclass constructor, e.g.

public class Foo extends Bar(final String name) {
   super(); // required by CallSuperInConstructor rule
   this.name = name;
}

The rule description (https://pmd.github.io/pmd/pmd_rules_java_codestyle.html#callsuperinconstructor) only says that it is a good practice without referencing any source. So I've asked PMD developers and their answer was:

this rule is part of the codestyle category. As such, it has no other reason than stylistic consistency.
(pmd/pmd#1564)

I believe this rule actually enforces a bad practice:

• It requires one additional and completely unnecessary line of code
• It suggests that developer doesn't believe Java compiler works and inserts the super constructor call. See for example justification for the ckeckstyle ExplicitInitializationCheck rule: http://checkstyle.sourceforge.net/apidocs/com/puppycrawl/tools/checkstyle/checks/coding/ExplicitInitializationCheck.html

Given that, I think this rule should be disabled.

[0crat]

@krzyk/z please, pay attention to this issue

[0crat]

@golszewski86/z this project will fix the problem faster if you donate a few dollars to it; just click here and pay via Stripe, it's very fast, convenient and appreciated; thanks a lot!

[krzyk]

@yegor256 Any opinions on that? I agree with @golszewski86 that this rule is pointless.

[llorllale]

@krzyk it's also triggered for anonymous classes. See this example

[yegor256]

@krzyk I agree, let's get rid of it.

[krzyk]

@0crat in

[0crat]

@0crat in (here)

@krzyk Job #982 is now in scope, role is DEV

[0crat]

@0crat in (here)

@krzyk Thanks for your contribution, @golszewski86/z! If you would be a member of the project, you would now earn +15 reputation points, as explained in §29. You can join and apply to it, see §2.

[0crat]

The job #982 assigned to @paulodamaso/z, here is why; the budget is 30 minutes, see §4; please, read §8 and §9; if the task is not clear, read this and this; there will be no monetary reward for this job

[paulodamaso]

@golszewski86 Merged, please close

[paulodamaso]

@0crat wait for closure

[paulodamaso]

@golszewski86 ping

[paulodamaso]

@krzyk ping

[0crat]

@0crat wait for closure (here)

@paulodamaso The impediment for #982 was registered successfully by @paulodamaso/z

[paulodamaso]

@krzyk please take a look

[0crat]

@krzyk/z everybody who has role DEV is banned at #982; I won't be able to assign anyone automatically; consider assigning someone manually (as in §19), or invite more people (as in §51), or remove the job from the scope (as in §14)

[krzyk]

@paulodamaso I can't do much here, I can't close issues

[0crat]

@krzyk/z everybody who has role DEV is banned at #982; I won't be able to assign anyone automatically; consider assigning someone manually (as in §19), or invite more people (as in §51), or remove the job from the scope (as in §14)

[0crat]

@krzyk/z everybody who has role DEV is banned at #982; I won't be able to assign anyone automatically; consider assigning someone manually (as in §19), or invite more people (as in §51), or remove the job from the scope (as in §14)

[grzechol]

@paulodamaso, @krzyk Sorry guys I can't close the issue too...

[golszewski86]

Ooops wrong github account :) With this one I can

[0crat]

Job gh:teamed/qulice#982 is not assigned, can't get performer

[0crat]

The job #982 is now out of scope