On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 18:49:44 -0700, Chas Honton wrote:
Since most of us work in an IDE, the "wasted" time of checkstyle for
every build is negligible.

It's not just the wasted time of running the tool (which might
well be negligible), it's the forcing of e.g. documenting a code
that might turn out to be transient on the path to a complete

At my day job, all code is automatically
reformatted as part of the build. It's just another step along with
PMD, CPD, findbugs, sonar, jacoco, junit, and a few other static
analyses. The more we automate, the less we need to remember and the
higher the quality of our code.

That's not always the case: I don't particularly like the "feature"
of IDEs that automatically inserts Javadoc templates:

 * @param a
 * @param b
 * @return int
public int doSomething(int a, int b) {
  // ...

Which then often remain useless as actual documentation. ;-)



On Aug 8, 2017, at 4:13 PM, Gilles <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:


On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 00:20:00 +0200, Karl-Philipp Richter wrote:

Am 07.08.2017 um 15:09 schrieb Gilles:
Less work for the maintainers is good. :-)

By "taking time" I meant that validating should not be enforced when
calling "mvn compile" or "mvn test".
I wouldn't worry about the time consumption of the validation even if
it's run by every dev before very compilation since the sum of
conversation parts in patch/PR discussion in the form of "LGTM, except for the indentation at line xy" - "OK, I fixed that now" - "Oh, no wait, I forgot the trailing space at line yz" - ... - merged takes an infinite
more of time and energy.

I agree, but that is with respect to interaction with someone not used to the coding style/rules; what I meant is that when doing one's "own" work, one shouldn't have to wait for CheckStyle at every compilation, when you know that you'll fix the missing doc _after_ fixing the code.

Regarding the phase where checkstyle should be run I have some
additional thoughts to my initial post:

 * If running checkstyle will be enforced the only phase that makes
sense is `validate` because you don't won't to build something that's invalid because it's somehow unlogical and a waiste of time if you don't fail the build as early as possible. In order to avoid annoyance for
users who aren't used to fix checkstyle errors before being able to
build I'd suggest a profile with deactivated checkstyle which allows
that rather an putting checkstyle in a separate profile.

IIUC, that would be fine (since it takes care of the above scenario).

* Running checkstyle in the site or any other reporting phase is in Maven speak afaik "show what might be wrong with my build given the fact that I consider it passing after compilation, unit and integration tests passed" or "show me some statistics about style issues - 150, wow that's
12 less than last build".

That's what we've done up to now; and the number of errors is supposed to be zero before a release. But I agree that the risk of a lot of work for the RM would be reduced by enforcing checks at least before committing
to the "master" branch.

Is anyone objecting?

I think that the profile should be defined in the "parent" POM.
Can someone make the necessary additions?


To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org

Reply via email to