Java 14 records with empty constructors violate beRecords() rule

[SoylentBob]

Given that I have an arch unit test like this:

package org.example;

import static com.tngtech.archunit.lang.syntax.ArchRuleDefinition.classes;

import com.tngtech.archunit.core.importer.ClassFileImporter;
import org.junit.jupiter.api.Test;

public class RecordTest
{

  @Test
  public void recordTest() {
    var javaClasses = new ClassFileImporter().importPackages("org.example");

    classes().that()
        .haveNameMatching("(.*)Record")
        .should()
        .beRecords()
        .because("they should be simple data structures")
        .check(javaClasses);
  }
}

And a record like this in my project:

package org.example;

public record EmptyRecord()
{
}

When I run the arch unit test, then a violation is reported, even though EmptyRecord is a valid (but useless) Java 14 record:

Architecture Violation [Priority: MEDIUM] - Rule 'classes that have name matching '(.*)Record' should be records, because they should be simple data structures' was violated (1 times):
Class <org.example.EmptyRecord> is no record in (EmptyRecord.java:0)
java.lang.AssertionError: Architecture Violation [Priority: MEDIUM] - Rule 'classes that have name matching '(.*)Record' should be records, because they should be simple data structures' was violated (1 times):
Class <org.example.EmptyRecord> is no record in (EmptyRecord.java:0)
	at com.tngtech.archunit.lang.ArchRule$Assertions.assertNoViolation(ArchRule.java:94)
	at com.tngtech.archunit.lang.ArchRule$Assertions.check(ArchRule.java:86)
	at com.tngtech.archunit.lang.ArchRule$Factory$SimpleArchRule.check(ArchRule.java:165)
	at org.example.RecordTest.recordTest(RecordTest.java:20)

When the record is extended with a parameter, then the violation is resolved:

package org.example;

public record EmptyRecord(String someValue)
{
}

A full example to reproduce the issue can be found here.

[hankem]

Thank you so much for the well crafted bug report including the example! 💚

This happens because ArchUnit uses ASM's ClassVisitor#visitRecordComponent to identify records, which is not invoked for records with a recordComponentsCount of 0. We should probably use ClassVisitor#visit's access flags instead.