RE: [argouml-dev] The new version of checkclipse

Mon, 23 Oct 2006 14:59:12 -0700

Title: Message

Great!

 

I have now updated the Cookbook to not require javadoc comments for overridden and implemented methods and changed the checkstyle rules.

 

I noticed that we probably will have to update the version of the checkstyle tool that we have in the project. On the other hand, checkstyle is delivered with checklipse and I guess no-one runs it from within the project so we could just remove it together with the rules on how to run it and I will keep all that to the argouml-gen project.

 

            /Linus

 

From: Tom Morris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: den 22 oktober 2006 21:14
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [argouml-dev] The new version of checkclipse

 

When tools cause work instead of saving work, it's time to get rid of them.  I think Checkstyle's JavadocMethod certainly falls into this category and would be happy to see it go, even if it means a slight loss of coverage for methods in interfaces and superclassses.

 

Tom

-----Original Message-----
From: Linus Tolke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2006 11:59 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [argouml-dev] The new version of checkclipse

After testing this, I notice that there is not any such difference. Javadoc does approximately the same copying for implemented methods without any javadoc comment as with the [EMAIL PROTECTED] comment.

 

If using the Eclipse warnings, there is a possibility to warn for missing javadoc comments for methods that are not implementing or overriding but ignore warnings for methods that are. The change you suggest for checkstyle though, disables all checks for missing javadoc comments for methods and not only for the implementing or overriding methods.

 

I can accept this lack in the tools support.

 

Any more comment on this or shall we change our standards as Michiel suggests, not to require javadoc comments on implementing or overriding methods?

 

            /Linus

 

From: Linus Tolke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: den 19 oktober 2006 23:11
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [argouml-dev] The new version of checkclipse

 

Isn’t there a difference in that the documentation from the overridden or implemented method is included/generated, if the source is available?

 

            /Linus

 

From: Michiel van der Wulp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: den 19 oktober 2006 18:24
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [argouml-dev] The new version of checkclipse

 

Hi All,

 

On second thought, there is no advantage in having the [EMAIL PROTECTED]} when Eclipse already shows a green upwards pointing triangle in the margin next to such methods. Can we not agree to remove the JavaDoc in this case?

 

Checkclipse/checkstyle support this.You simply add the following in the same location as the patch discussed before:

 

<module name="JavadocMethod">

    ....

    <property name="allowMissingJavadoc" value="true"/>

</module>

 

Regards,

Michiel

 

----- Original Message -----

Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 10:40 PM

Subject: Re: [argouml-dev] The new version of checkclipse

 

Ah, OK, maybe I was a bit confused about the "1st problem", i.e. the appearance of JavadocMethod warnings for "@see" style of Javadoc.

 

This is in fact solved by replacing all the

 

/*

 * @see ...

*/

 

by

 

/*

*/

 

Did we decide to perform this change everywhere?

 

Linus' mail from yesterday says that we have to use the @inheritDoc from now on, but I presume we also have to eradicate all @see javadocs that give the warning.

 

Can you clarify Linus?

 

Regards,

Michiel

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 10:18 PM

Subject: Re: [argouml-dev] The new version of checkclipse

 

Hi Linus, et al.,

 

I see the same problem.

Apparently, this is the second problem with the JavadocMethod check. See also:

 

Luckily, I found a solution today (for this 2nd problem):

 

Index: C:/Documents and Settings/Michiel/My Documents/Java_Development/ArgoUML_SVN_Workspace/argouml-core-tools/checkstyle/checkstyle_argouml.xml
===================================================================
--- C:/Documents and Settings/Michiel/My Documents/Java_Development/ArgoUML_SVN_Workspace/argouml-core-tools/checkstyle/checkstyle_argouml.xml (revision 11286)
+++ C:/Documents and Settings/Michiel/My Documents/Java_Development/ArgoUML_SVN_Workspace/argouml-core-tools/checkstyle/checkstyle_argouml.xml (working copy)
@@ -77,6 +77,8 @@
     <module name="JavadocMethod">
       <property name="scope" value="protected"/>
       <property name="allowUndeclaredRTE" value="true"/>
+      <property name="logLoadErrors" value="true"/>
+      <property name="suppressLoadErrors" value="true"/>
     </module>
     <module name="JavadocVariable">
       <property name="scope" value="protected"/>

I do not know if both lines are required, but it solves the problem like this.

If this works for you too, please commit!

 

PS: But I fear I will have to comment out the complete JavadocMethod check again, since the 1st problem is still not solved yet.

 

Regards,

Michiel

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Linus Tolke

Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 4:05 PM

Subject: RE: [argouml-dev] The new version of checkclipse

 

I am referring to the

Got an exception - java.lang.RuntimeException: Unable to get class information for @throws tag *whatever*.

errors.

 

            /Linus

 

From: Linus Tolke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: den 17 oktober 2006 16:03
To: [email protected]
Subject: [argouml-dev] The new version of checkclipse

 

Hello all!

 

I attempted to enable checklipse 2.1.0 (the latest available version) in my Eclipse 3.2 installation that previously didn’t have a checklipse.

 

I noticed that it doesn’t work i.e. it gives a lot of false errors. This seems to be a known problem that has been bounced back and forth a little between the checkstyle and the checklipse project but appearantly not resolved.

 

What can we do about it? Shall we just wait and accept that we have these false errors? Anything else?

 

            /Linus

 

************************************************

Linus Tolke
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

ArgoUML

************************************************

 

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.4/478 - Release Date: 17/10/2006

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.5/483 - Release Date: 18/10/2006

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.5/483 - Release Date: 18/10/2006

Reply via email to