## Why is this an issue?

Before records appeared in Java 16, there was a common way to represent getters for private fields of a class: a method named "get" with a capitalized field name. For example, for a `String` field named "myField" the signature of the getter method will be: `public String getMyField()`

In records, getters are named differently. Getters created by default do not contain the "get" prefix. So for a record’s `String` field "myField" the getter method will be: `public String myField()`

This means that if you want to override the default getter behavior it is better to use the method provided by records instead of creating a new one. Otherwise, this will bring confusion to the users of the record as two getters will be available and even leads to bugs if the behavior is different from the default one.

This rule raises an issue when a record contains a getter named "get" with a capitalized field name that is not behaving the same as the default one.

### Noncompliant code example

    record Person(String name, int age) {
        public String getName() { // Noncompliant
            return name.toUpperCase(Locale.ROOT);
        }
    }

### Compliant solution

    record Person(String name, int age) {
        @Override
        public String name() { // Compliant
            return name.toUpperCase(Locale.ROOT);
        }
    }

    record Person(String name, int age) {
        public String getNameUpperCase() { // Compliant
            return name.toUpperCase(Locale.ROOT);
        }
    }
    record Person(String name, int age) {
        public String getName() { // Compliant, is equivalent to 'name()'
            return name;
        }
    }
    record Person(String name, int age) {
        @Override
        public String name() { // Compliant
            return name.toUpperCase(Locale.ROOT);
        }
        public String getName() { // Compliant, equal to 'name()'
            return name.toUpperCase(Locale.ROOT);
        }
    }

### Exceptions

If the implementations of `getMyField()` and `myField()` methods are equivalent, the issue should not be raised as this was probably done to support compatibility with the previous convention.

## Resources

- Records specification