+1 for static analysis. here is what codacy looks like on the avro fork I use: https://app.codacy.com/project/zolyfarkas/avro/dashboard
—Z > On Nov 7, 2018, at 10:01 AM, Michael A. Smith <mich...@smith-li.com> wrote: > > Now that the Yetus/Travis integration is running (yay), I hope it's not > premature to talk about static analysis tools, or as they're sometimes > called "automated code review". > > Correct me if I have it wrong, but I believe our Yetus/Travis integration > is focused on running the handwritten test cases in each lang. Even if we > turn on a static analyzer, we'd have to pick through its output in Travis' > console. "Automated Code Review" tools provide line-based feedback in your > PR, and they return results much faster than unit tests. Many of the > companies that run these automated code review tools are free for open > source projects. Here are a few that I've worked with before, for > consideration: > > - https://codeclimate.com/oss/ > - https://codebeat.co/open-source/ > - http://opensource.codacy.com/ > - https://scrutinizer-ci.com/ > > They are all great, and I don't strongly care which one we use, but I think > isolating the static analysis from the unit test runner is worth doing so > we get feedback faster on little easy-to-fix things. > > What do you think?
