On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Jeremy Thomerson <[email protected]> wrote: > Rather, there should be a rule that > checks for accidental assignment (i.e. "foo = false").
there is one, at least in eclipse. -igor > > Anyway, I agree with Igor (a later post on this thread) - let's not tweak > just to tweak. > > -- > Jeremy Thomerson > http://www.wickettraining.com > > > > On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 8:31 AM, tetsuo <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 >> > > >> > >> >
