Max Berger wrote:
Hi Max,
snip/
Many of these could be automatically solved using the eclipse cleanup
tools (which can actually be called on the whole src dir!). However,
that would result in a change in almost every file, and making merging
of separate branches almost impossible. This
Hi,
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
I'm scared by the thought of having a program clean our source code
changing lots of files. I prefer the approach that the devs shall try to
improve the code while they are working on it.
Agreed. Even if that doesn’t prevent us from scheduling a big “code
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Vincent,
Vincent Hennebert schrieb:
18000 PMD violations is just sick. Things like rule [1] doesn't really help
the source code. We can do that if we get a budget for
nuclear-power-plant-grade
software.
Same here I guess. Now may be the right
- Oorspronkelijk bericht -
Van: Max Berger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verzonden: vrijdag, juni 13, 2008 01:11 PM
+1
I must say, I’ve never really grasped the benefit of doing this. I’d be
happy to be enlightened, though.
Sure:
Declaring a parameter / variable as final makes it
Hi,
Thanks for your explanation.
Max Berger wrote:
[1]
http://pmd.sourceforge.net/rules/optimizations.html#MethodArgumentCouldBeFinal
+1
I must say, I’ve never really grasped the benefit of doing this. I’d be
happy to be enlightened, though.
Sure:
Declaring a parameter / variable
- Oorspronkelijk bericht -
Van: Vincent Hennebert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verzonden: vrijdag, juni 13, 2008 08:31 PM
snip /
FWIW, I do re-assign local variables sometimes (rarely). When the new
value serves the same purpose, and creating a new variable with another
name would actually
Max Berger:
since this came up, here is a list of tools I use for software quality
checking (and all them them can check for generic list types). All of
them have Eclipse and maven plugins (and ant tasks, and )
Incidentally, I would be happy too if we had some written-down
guidelines
Dear Fop-Devs,
Jeremias is right - you actually need to use the output of these
reports. At this time there are:
1849 checkstyle violations
18702 pmd violations
possible (find)bugs.
Many of these could be automatically solved using the eclipse
cleanup tools (which can actually be called
I'm scared by the thought of having a program clean our source code
changing lots of files. I prefer the approach that the devs shall try to
improve the code while they are working on it.
BTW, I think there's one or two rules in our Checkstyle file that
probably should/could be removed. For
I'm using FindBugs (as Eclipse plug-in) for some time now and it is
really good. Not that I can really say yes to 100% of the suggestions.
But about 98%.
I'm not sure about the benefit of those reports. We've had the
Checkstyle report for years now, but I doubt many people look at that
often.
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
I'm using FindBugs (as Eclipse plug-in) for some time now and it is
really good. Not that I can really say yes to 100% of the suggestions.
But about 98%.
I'm not sure about the benefit of those reports. We've had the
Checkstyle report for years now, but I doubt many
;-) I don't make assumptions what sex the people are that work with FOP
(committer or not). In Switzerland, it's best practice to include both
forms if you address a group of people with unknown composition.
On 11.06.2008 09:44:39 Peter B. West wrote:
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
I'm using FindBugs
Well, Glen is the only FOP developer who's actually seen me in
person... Although Jeremias has seen my avatar... ;-)
Clay
On 6/11/08, Jeremias Maerki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
;-) I don't make assumptions what sex the people are that work with FOP
(committer or not). In Switzerland, it's best
Dear Fop-Devs,
since this came up, here is a list of tools I use for software quality
checking (and all them them can check for generic list types). All of
them have Eclipse and maven plugins (and ant tasks, and )
Checkstyle: checkstyle.sf.net
(already configured in fop, so nothing
Hi Max,
By all means, go for it. That can’t hurt, IMO, and this will probably be
quite helpful (or scary, maybe ;-) ).
Of course, just setting them up will not be enough. Their suggestions
will also have to be followed. Given that there are already something
like 18,000 checkstyle warnings in the
On Jun 10, 2008, at 12:26, Vincent Hennebert wrote:
By all means, go for it.
I second this.
That can’t hurt, IMO, and this will probably be
quite helpful (or scary, maybe ;-) ).
Of course, just setting them up will not be enough. Their suggestions
will also have to be followed. Given that
Dear Fop-Devs,
for the actual implementation, I think it would be a good idea to
create a second lib-directory (e.g. buildsupport, or buildlib), and
add the required libs there, so that we're all using the same tools.
These libs would only be needed during build, and not during deployment.
Hi Max,
Max Berger wrote:
Dear Fop-Devs,
for the actual implementation, I think it would be a good idea to create
a second lib-directory (e.g. buildsupport, or buildlib), and add the
required libs there, so that we're all using the same tools. These libs
would only be needed during build,
18 matches
Mail list logo
