On 7 August 2012 09:28, Thomas Neidhart <thomas.neidh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Jörg Schaible > <joerg.schai...@scalaris.com>wrote: > >> Hi Thomas, >> >> Thomas Neidhart wrote: >> >> > On 08/06/2012 10:00 PM, Jörg Schaible wrote: >> >> >> >> =================== %< ========================== >> >> >> >> Betreff: svn commit: r1369931 - in >> >> >> >> /commons/proper/collections/trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/commons/collections: >> >> keyvalue/ list/ >> >> Absender: t...@apache.org >> >> Datum: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 19:21:30 +0000 >> >> Newsgruppe: gmane.comp.jakarta.commons.scm >> >> >> >> Author: tn >> >> Date: Mon Aug 6 19:21:29 2012 >> >> New Revision: 1369931 >> >> >> >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1369931&view=rev >> >> Log: >> >> Checkstyle fixes. >> >> >> >> [snip] >> >> >> >> @@ -55,14 +55,18 @@ public abstract class AbstractMapEntryDe >> >> } >> >> >> >> >> //----------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> + >> >> + /** {@inheritDoc} */ >> >> public K getKey() { >> >> return entry.getKey(); >> >> } >> >> >> >> + /** {@inheritDoc} */ >> >> public V getValue() { >> >> return entry.getValue(); >> >> } >> >> >> >> + /** {@inheritDoc} */ >> >> public V setValue(V object) { >> >> return entry.setValue(object); >> >> } >> >> =================== %< ========================== >> >> >> >> Geeez, what's that for an annoying change? Since Java 5 this is already >> >> the default for Javadoc when overwriting/implementing methods, so adding >> >> a Javdoc comment with a single @inheritDoc is completely superfluous and >> >> adds simply clutter! >> >> >> >> Can we stop Checkstyle complaining about it and revert these lines >> again? >> > >> > If you have a better solution, I am really willing to include it. >> > >> > My suggestion to go for java 6 source compatibility to be able to use >> > @Override tags was so far objected. >> >> @Override and the Javadoc inheritance is not related, automatic Javadoc >> inheritance works for Java 5 independently. It seems just this bogus >> Checkstyle rule, but I have nothing done with Checkstyle rules ever. >> > > Yes, I am perfectly aware of this. My goal was to bring the number of > checkstyle warnings to a manageable amount, so see the real issues more > easily (now there are still more than 800 warnings).
In which case, I suggest disabling all the rules that trigger warnings. Then re-enable one by one, starting with the most important. > Afaik, there is no easy way to exclude certain methods from the check, it > only works on scope level, but as these methods all have public scope, we > are somehow stuck. > > Thomas --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
