Hi together, I suggest using sonar here as the leading system as these IDE warnings are often not very helpful (and times very different from IDE to IDE). There are some plugins for Eclipse and Idea to display sonar warnings inline.
A plus feature in sonar: You can here discuss these issues (in the sonar comment section) and mark them as false positives if these are not a problem. Sebastian Von: Dale LaBossiere Gesendet: Montag, 26. Februar 2018 18:18 An: dev@plc4x.apache.org Betreff: Re: 235 warnings Sonar[1] reports 158 code smells but those don’t seem to include any of the categories of the 235 noted below. Not sure what to make of that. At least an overwhelming number of the 235 are legitimate. E.g., one should use a generic type in a generic way instead of as a raw type; there are in fact unnecessary @SuppressWarning instances and missing javadoc tags, etc. [1] https://builds.apache.org/analysis/dashboard/index/org.apache.plc4x:plc4x-parent > On Feb 26, 2018, at 11:13 AM, Christofer Dutz <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> > wrote: > > Hi Dale, > > I'm seeing similar Problems as with Edgent here ;-) > > If the reported problems are actual problems, we should fix them and find > ways to prevent them in the future by making IntelliJ report them too. > However my trust in reports of Eclipe is not too high. Is Sonar reporting > them too? > > Chris > > > > > Am 26.02.18, 15:56 schrieb "Dale LaBossiere" <dml.apa...@gmail.com>: > > There were many in test code but lots in non-test code too. I don’t think > there are serious problems. But with all of the warnings it’s too easy to > miss significant ones or add more. > > Changing “Use of a raw type” from warning to info drops the warnings from > 235 to 85. > Then changing “Unchecked generic type operation” to info drops the > warnings to 47. > That left some javadoc, pom (duplicate version), unnecessary and > unsupported @SuppressWarnings, and unused variables. > > I'd be inclined to do a bunch of the cleanup myself if I had some degree > of confidence that the project was committed to their elimination. A project > policy of not delivering code that adds more is sufficient IMO (not sure > tooling enforcement is necessary). Can IntelliJ be configured to always show > to the warnings so folks can avoid them? > > How does the rest of the team feel about all of this? > > — Dale > > >> On Feb 24, 2018, at 7:02 PM, Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >>> On the current “master” branch, Eclipse 4.6.3 (with std Error/Warning >>> preference config) and java 1.8.0_161, Eclipse reports 235 warnings. The >>> bulk of these seem to be Raw type and Type safety warnings. Are there >>> plans for dealing with these? >> >> I guess you are project the only person using Eclipse. IntelliJ also gives >> number of warnings when you analyse the code, but most of the “issues” are >> with test code and not issues or due to a couple of things that have not >> been completed. Sonarqube also does a good job of picking most things. Are >> any of the issues Eclipse picks up in your opinion serious? >> >> Thanks, >> Justin > > >
