Remove custom assertions that check kdoc of rules

[marschwar]

This is part of the #3670 cleanup.

• removes checks that are no longer necessary after switching to annotations
• add missing rule sets to checks
• add dependency to formatting rules to be able to check those
• test rule configs more generically

[chao2zhang]

This piece code is providing certain coverage for at least the rule config key "active".

[schalkms]

Agree

[marschwar]

I disagree. This code explicitly ignores the active key as it is part of allowedOptions (see below).

val configFields = ruleClass.declaredFields.filter { isPublicStaticFinal(it) && it.name != "Companion" }
var filter = ymlOptions.filterKeys { it !in allowedOptions }
// ...
for (ymlOption in filter) {
  // ...
}

What this code acutally does is make sure there is a constant with the name of every config key (except for "active", "excludes", ...) such as.

const val THRESHOLD = "threshold"
const val FUNCTION_THRESHOLD = "functionThreshold"
const val CONSTRUCTOR_THRESHOLD = "constructorThreshold"
const val IGNORE_DEFAULT_PARAMETERS = "ignoreDefaultParameters"
const val IGNORE_DATA_CLASSES = "ignoreDataClasses"
const val IGNORE_ANNOTATED = "ignoreAnnotated"

for

  LongParameterList:
    active: true
    functionThreshold: 6
    constructorThreshold: 7
    ignoreDefaultParameters: false
    ignoreDataClasses: true
    ignoreAnnotated: []

[chao2zhang]

Thanks for pointing out the logic, I did run the test in IDE again for the existing code, it looks like most of the rules are hitting the return branch of if (ruleClass.isConfiguredWithAnnotations()) return, and what I have observed is that when hitting for (ymlOption in filter), the filter is almost always an empty list.

[marschwar]

Yes, as all rules have been moved to the configuration by annotation that was pretty much what I expected. Is there any check you would like me to add here?

In a separate PR I was thinking about adding something to the ConfigurationCollector that fails when there is a @configuration kdoc on a rule. Technically this could be done here as well.

[chao2zhang]

Let's do it in a separate PR. Since the tests are not covering much as of today.