Name 'id' must match pattern '^[a-z]{2,}[a-zA-Z]+$'. (MethodNameCheck)

[dgroup]

Hi Guys,
What is the business purpose of this check for the fields and methods with name equal to id?
This name quite self-explaining.

The same is related to PMD

• Field id has the same name as a method (AvoidFieldNameMatchingMethodName)
• Avoid using short method names (ShortMethodName)

Why it can't be added into exclusions?

[0crat]

@krzyk/z please, pay attention to this issue

[0crat]

@dgroup/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]

@dgroup makes sense (considering that we already have #593)

[krzyk]

@0crat in

[dgroup]

@krzyk no response from 0crat more than 7 min. Looks like 0crat went into the infinitive loop due to your #960 self-link :)

[0crat]

@0crat in (here)

@krzyk Job #960 is now in scope, role is DEV

[0crat]

Bug was reported, see §29: +15 point(s) just awarded to @dgroup/z

[dgroup]

Also, I think the same situation with field/method equal to name.
That's also quite self-explaining.

[0crat]

The job #960 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]

@krzyk I believe that it has already been resolved in the linked PRs, what should I do here?

[krzyk]

@paulodamaso there wasn't any PR here, the linked issue is for slightly different problem

[paulodamaso]

@krzyk OK,thanks, I'll take a look soon

[paulodamaso]

@0crat refuse

[0crat]

@0crat refuse (here)

@paulodamaso The user @paulodamaso/z resigned from #960, please stop working. Reason for job resignation: Order was cancelled

[0crat]

Tasks refusal is discouraged, see §6: -15 point(s) just awarded to @paulodamaso/z

[0crat]

@krzyk/z everybody who has role DEV is banned at #960; 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 #960; 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 #960; 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 #960; 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 #960; 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 #960; 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 #960; 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 #960; 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 #960; 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)