Determine naming convention for issues/violations/errors/checks

[fpgmaas]

Question

Right now, we use a combination of the words issue, violation, check, error code. It would be good to determine a standard naming convention. My proposal would be to use "rule" to refer to DEP001, DEP002, etc. and "violation"(as already implemented in the code by @mkniewallner) to refer to specific violations in the code/configuration files.

[mkniewallner]

Agree, we should be more consistent in our naming. I must say that we didn't really discuss if "violation" is what we want to go with when starting using that over the codebase, but I think that it goes well with the usage of "rule" (at least compared to using "issue"), so using "rule" and "violation" is something I would agree with.

[fpgmaas]

If we go for 'rule' and 'violation', we need to make some small changes. For example, a 'missing dependency' is an issue, whereas 'Project should not contain missing dependencies' is a rule that can be violated. So e.g. in the docs, we'd replace this:

• Missing dependencies (DEP001)
• Unused dependencies (DEP002)
• Transitive dependencies (DEP003)
• Misplaced development dependencies (DEP004)

with

Code	Description	More information
DEP001	Project should not contain missing dependencies	link
DEP002	Project should not contain unused dependencies	link
DEP003	Project should not contain unnecessary transitive dependencies	link
DEP004	Project should not use development dependencies in non-development code	link

see here.

[fpgmaas]

Going for "rule" and "violation".