Taking specifically your example, 'foo == false' is too similar to 'foo =
false', which also compiles, and is probably an error (not just checking the
value, but changing it. '!foo' or 'false == foo' ('false = foo' doesn't
compile) may be better choices.But yes, most of these warnings are just about taste or rules without context, and I don't think they should even be cosidered 'fixes'. On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 10:14 AM, Jeremy Thomerson < [email protected]> wrote: > I would reject patchs to fix some of those. Some of those so-called > "violations" are just their coding style not being the same as ours. > > For instance, they say there are 218 "violations" where we have 'if (foo == > false)' - which they say should be simplified, I'm assuming to be 'if > (!foo)'. Personally, I write mine as "foo == false" because it is much > harder to miss that than it is to miss "!" as you're reading through the > code. > > Another example: "empty method in abstract class should be abstract". No, > it shouldn't. It's a method designed to be overridden for additional > functionality if you so desire. > > There might be some that are worth fixing. But as I mention, there are > some > that are better left alone. > > -- > Jeremy Thomerson > http://www.wickettraining.com > > > > On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 6:39 AM, nino martinez wael < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi I wondered > > > > if it would be interesting if I started to make wicket more in > > compliance with the rules defined here: > > http://nemo.sonarsource.org/drilldown/violations/44196?priority=MAJOR > > ? > > > > I'd of course start by submitting patches.. > > > > So are it interesting? > > > > regards Nino > > >
