Yeah I know, one has to have a sense of code regarding some of those violations. But are very good to have as an indicator, at work I've removed some of the rules from the rule set as they do not fit our programming style. We value code readability very high, although it's a constant battle between developers.
Regarding reading code is a completely different matter. When I see something like "!foo", I just read it "not foo". You can miss the exclamation, but you can also miss one equal sign and have a fatal problem. One of the most annoying ones are if you create something serializable you also have to declare an id. Another one are that eclipse by default generates methods that are pulled to an interface abstract, but one of the rules says it's duplicate signature since it's an interface :) So theres a secret battle between eclipse and the ruleset.. But most of the are good. regards Nino 2010/3/23 Jeremy Thomerson <[email protected]>: > 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 >> >
