Update RSPEC before 9.2 release (#7297)

analyzers/rspec/cs/S3981.html

@@ -1,23 +1,14 @@
 <h2>Why is this an issue?</h2>
-<p>The size of a collection and the length of an array are always greater than or equal to zero. So testing that a size or length is greater than or
-equal to zero doesn’t make sense, since the result is always <code>true</code>. Similarly testing that it is less than zero will always return
-<code>false</code>. Perhaps the intent was to check the non-emptiness of the collection or array instead.</p>
-<h3>Noncompliant code example</h3>
+<p>The size of a collection and the length of an array are always greater than or equal to zero. Testing it doesn’t make sense, since the result is
+always <code>true</code>.</p>
 <pre>
-if(collection.Count &gt;= 0){...}
+if(collection.Count &gt;= 0){...} // Noncompliant: always true
 
-if(enumerable.Count() &lt; 0){...}
-
-if(array.Length &gt;= 0){...}
-
-bool result = array.Length &gt;=0;
+if(array.Length &gt;= 0){...} // Noncompliant: always true
 </pre>
-<h3>Compliant solution</h3>
+<p>Similarly testing that it is less than zero will always return <code>false</code>.</p>
 <pre>
-if (list.Any()) { ... }
-
-if (list.Count &gt; 0) { ... }
-
-if (array.Length &gt;= 42) { ... }
+if(enumerable.Count() &lt; 0){...} // Noncompliant: always false
 </pre>
+<p>Fix the code to properly check for emptiness if it was the intent, or remove the redundant code to keep the current behavior.</p>
 

analyzers/rspec/cs/S4487.html

@@ -1,12 +1,11 @@
 <h2>Why is this an issue?</h2>
-<p>Private fields only used to store values without reading them later is a case of dead store. So changing the value of such field is useless and
-most probably indicates a serious error in the code.</p>
-<h3>Noncompliant code example</h3>
-<pre>
+<p>Private fields which are written but never read are a case of "dead store". Changing the value of such a field is useless and most probably
+indicates an error in the code.</p>
+<pre data-diff-id="1" data-diff-type="noncompliant">
 public class Rectangle
 {
   private readonly int length;
-  private readonly int width;  // width is written but never read
+  private readonly int width;  // Noncompliant: width is written but never read
 
   public Rectangle(int length, int width)
   {
@@ -23,8 +22,8 @@ <h3>Noncompliant code example</h3>
   }
 }
 </pre>
-<h3>Compliant solution</h3>
-<pre>
+<p>Remove this field if it doesn’t need to be read, or fix the code to read it.</p>
+<pre data-diff-id="1" data-diff-type="compliant">
 public class Rectangle
 {
   private readonly int length;
@@ -46,6 +45,7 @@ <h3>Compliant solution</h3>
 }
 </pre>
 <h2>Resources</h2>
+<h3>Standards</h3>
 <ul>
   <li> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/563">MITRE, CWE-563</a> - Assignment to Variable without Use ('Unused Variable') </li>
 </ul>

analyzers/rspec/cs/S6603.json

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@
     "constantCost": "5min"
   },
   "tags": [
-    "perfomance"
+    "performance"
   ],
   "defaultSeverity": "Minor",
   "ruleSpecification": "RSPEC-6603",

analyzers/rspec/cs/Sonar_way_profile.json

@@ -208,6 +208,7 @@
     "S3926",
     "S3927",
     "S3928",
+    "S3949",
     "S3963",
     "S3966",
     "S3971",

analyzers/rspec/vbnet/S3981.html

@@ -1,20 +1,16 @@
 <h2>Why is this an issue?</h2>
-<p>The size of a collection and the length of an array are always greater than or equal to zero. So testing that a size or length is greater than or
-equal to zero doesn’t make sense, since the result is always <code>true</code>. Similarly testing that it is less than zero will always return
-<code>false</code>. Perhaps the intent was to check the non-emptiness of the collection or array instead.</p>
-<h3>Noncompliant code example</h3>
+<p>The size of a collection and the length of an array are always greater than or equal to zero. Testing it doesn’t make sense, since the result is
+always <code>true</code>.</p>
 <pre>
-If Collection.Count &gt;= 0 Then ...
+If Collection.Count &gt;= 0 Then ... 'Noncompliant always true
 
-If Enumerable.Count &lt; 0 Then ...
-
-If array.Length &gt;= 0 Then ...
-
-Dim result As Boolean = Array.Length &gt;= 0
+If array.Length &gt;= 0 Then ... 'Noncompliant always true
 </pre>
-<h3>Compliant solution</h3>
+<p>Similarly testing that it is less than zero will always return <code>false</code>.</p>
 <pre>
-If list.Count = 0 Then ...
-If array.Length &gt;= 42 Then ...
+If Enumerable.Count &lt; 0 Then ... 'Noncompliant always false
+
+Dim result As Boolean = Array.Length &gt;= 0 'Noncompliant always true
 </pre>
+<p>Fix the code to properly check for emptiness if it was the intent, or remove the redundant code to keep the current behavior.</p>
 

analyzers/rspec/vbnet/S6603.json

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@
     "constantCost": "5min"
   },
   "tags": [
-    "perfomance"
+    "performance"
   ],
   "defaultSeverity": "Minor",
   "ruleSpecification": "RSPEC-6603",

analyzers/src/SonarAnalyzer.CSharp/sonarpedia.json

@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
   "languages": [
     "CSH"
   ],
-  "latest-update": "2023-05-26T08:18:45.873798200Z",
+  "latest-update": "2023-05-30T08:21:27.671874200Z",
   "options": {
     "no-language-in-filenames": true
   }

analyzers/src/SonarAnalyzer.VisualBasic/sonarpedia.json

@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
   "languages": [
     "VBNET"
   ],
-  "latest-update": "2023-05-26T08:23:03.863046500Z",
+  "latest-update": "2023-05-30T08:23:24.735391300Z",
   "options": {
     "no-language-in-filenames": true
   }