On 09/29/2016 03:27 PM, Clebert Suconic wrote:
I tried using that checkstye directly and didn't work right away. it
probably needs update versions or something else.
+1 to just use the google checks... just needs to be worked out.
although I would add:
<!-- Checks for imports -->
<module name="AvoidStarImport"/>
<module name="RedundantImport"/>
<module name="UnusedImports"/>
Those look good, they are actually part of the official Google style
guide requirements if you read the doc
And the sevntu checkstyle I contributed to sevntu:
<!-- Sevntu checks, http://sevntu-checkstyle.github.io/sevntu.checkstyle/ -->
<module name="DiamondOperatorForVariableDefinition"/>
<module name="RequiredParameterForAnnotation">
<property name="annotationName" value="Parameterized.Parameters"/>
<property name="requiredParameters" value="name"/>
</module>
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Timothy Bish <[email protected]> wrote:
On 09/29/2016 03:01 PM, Clebert Suconic wrote:
I don't know about other, but to me this is trivial change to me and I
don't mind anyways. All I really mind is to have a checkstyle in
place, whatever that is :)
What would need to be changed on the checkstyle rules? did you check?
From the old thread we lazily decided that we should adopt the Google style
guide which is quite close to the 5.x code as it stands now. I didn't look
close enough on the original commit to notice that this was not exactly what
was done but having been in the code over the past few days it has become
apparent it didn't go as far as I thought it was going to. It is a bit
irritating trying to bring over code from 5.x as the formatting never quite
matches and breaks the checkstyle rules.
The Google style formatting rules are here:
https://github.com/google/styleguide all in nice little files that can be
imported into the IDE of your choice.
For checkstyle configuration to use the Google style that is covered in the
CheckStyle project here:
https://github.com/checkstyle/checkstyle/blob/master/src/main/resources/google_checks.xml
Previous thread on this is here for reference:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/activemq-dev/201508.mbox/browser
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 2:41 PM, Christopher Shannon
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hey Everyone,
Last year we had a discussion on the coding style for Artemis and a
change
was made to the opening curly brace. However, I've been in the code
quite
a bit the past couple weeks doing testing (I am starting to look at what
needs to be done to help move missing features from 5.x) and I've noticed
a
couple of things that still don't match up with the 5.x style.
In general I think think we should try and get the style closer to 5.x
because it will make going back and forth between to two code bases
easier.
The main thing I noticed is the while the opening brace was moved the
closing curly brace is still on its own line which doesn't match the
style
of 5.x. This makes it a bit annoying when working in one project and then
doing work in a different project as suddenly you have to remember where
the curly brace is supposed to go.
For example:
Current format:
try {
//do something
}
catch (Exception cause) {
}
Proposed format, notice that the catch(Exception) part is on the same
line
as the closing brace
try {
//do something
} catch (Exception cause) {
}
Thoughts? My preference would be to adopt entire google style guide but I
think at the least should fix the closing curly brace so it matches up
with
5.x.
--
Tim Bish
twitter: @tabish121
blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
--
Tim Bish
twitter: @tabish121
blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
