Anyone working on it already?
If not I will do it. (just avoiding duplicating effort) On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Timothy Bish <[email protected]> wrote: > 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/ > -- Clebert Suconic
