On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 11:50 AM, Adar Lieber-Dembo <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Currently I've set up error-prone to only generate warnings and not fail > > the build even for errors it considers to be serious. So, even if you > don't > > configure your IDE specially, you shouldn't see any new failures on > gerrit, > > etc, due to these warnings. But, please let's all try to keep it "clean". > > Do you think we should fail the build on errors generated by > error-prone in the future? If so, what conditions would you like to > see satisfied first? If not, why not? > I could go either way. The upside of failing is that it prevents warnings from creeping up over time. The big downside is that a lot of people do Java development using their IDE to build and run tests, and won't ever invoke the gradle build from the CLI. Then they'll put up a patch and see a build failure only after posting the review. That could be a little frustrating for someone trying to contribute. I think a nice half-way point would be for the "tidy" precommit build to run Gradle (and spotbugs and any other static analysis) and propagate the warnings as comments on the gerrit review. This is a bit more easy to handle than an outright build failure for the developer but should still suffice to avoid warnings creep. Personally I'd be fine either way. The #1 reason I set the "errors as warnings" flag initially was that we weren't 100% clean and I wanted to be able to split up all the fixes into separate patches. -Todd -- Todd Lipcon Software Engineer, Cloudera
