David Herron wrote:
As the Quality group lead - I would be happy to have more quality
metrics like findbugs results to publish on the site. If we did publish
those results I'd want to tie it to an effort to find community members
to reduce the number of findbugs warnings. And, um, it would be nice to
have a parallel community effort to reduce the number of compiler
warnings ;-)
Another thing which would be useful is support for easily running a
comparison of findbugs results between two builds. One way this could
be used is to screen submissions of new code.. you'd have findbugs
results for the trunk, and you'd have findbugs results for an
individuals workspace, and you could compare them and see if the
developer is introducing new warnings and/or removing warnings.
But .. ah.. a 12 hr time to generate a set of findbugs results doesn't
sound scalable for this purpose..? Asking RE to produce findbugs
results for each promoted build might help but would that skew their
machine resource requirements?
Kelly, you asked about having findbugs as a build requirement. I think
it's not fitting as a hard build requirement. But I do think there
should be a findbugs build target and having findbugs in your
environment would be a requirement for that target but otherwise not
required.
But using the findbugs GUI or findbugs plugins (NetBeans/Eclipse)
is a much better user experience than the command line.
The textual output of findbugs is not something that is easy to
understand and connect up to the source, the html output is better
with the links and better source information.
The findbugs errors are usually a bit more complicated than your
typical javac error, not exactly sure how to describe it.
It's the GUI interfaces and the IDE's in particular that seem to
be the best findbugs analysis experience, in my opinion.
-kto
- David Herron
Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
Kelly,
I think that running findbugs on different segments of JDK and
publishing histograms of the results on the OpenJDK Quality pages
would be a fine idea, but unless we can get engineers to sign up to
reducing bugs found by findbugs, the histograms would be somewhat boring.
-- Jon
On May 13, 2008, at 4:37 PM, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
I'm currently looking at how we could possible include a run of findbugs
in the build process, but my conclusion right now is that we cannot
do it
by default, it takes way to long to run findbugs over everything.
(>12hrs).
But I could add some minor support to the Makefiles to allow someone to
run findbugs on specific classes/packages, using a command line like
this:
findbugs -textui -maxHeap 1024 -javahome /YOUR/jdk1.6.0 -sortByClass \
-onlyAnalyze "IMPORT_SPEC" -html -output report.html \
CLASSES_DIRECTORY_OR_JAR
For example, after I have built the jdk, you could run findbugs over
just
the java.lang.* classes:
findbugs -textui -maxHeap 1024 -javahome /opt/java/jdk1.6.0
-sortByClass \
-onlyAnalyze "java.lang.*" -html -output report.html \
build/solaris-i586/classes
Ideally you want a fully populated classes directory or jar file so
that it can analyze all the classes properly.
(Note: using java.lang.* does not include the classes in the nested
packages).
But people could just run the findbugs GUI and do the same thing, or
better
yet, run the findbugs modules in the NetBeans IDE or Eclipse IDE.
So I'm at a loss as to whether I should include anything in the
makefiles
for this at all. Maybe I was premature in adding findbugs as a build
dependence
on the jdk and it should just be removed?
Any ideas out there? Or comments?
-kto
