Github user leventov commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/490
> However we already integrated findbugs tool in our build process, don't
you think it would be better to replace that instead of using two similar tools
side-by-side?
@anmolnar no, static analysis tools complement each other. Bugs found by
one tool are not found by another, and vice versa. So it's good to run them all.
> Additionally I think it would be better for reviewers to split this PR
into 1) integration of new static analyis tool, 2) test fixes.
Test problems are catched by the tool. If the tool is integrated first, the
compilation will fail briefly. So I don't see the point of the separation. The
whole PR is not that big, after all.
> Could we add the error prone compiler as an optional tool, so that
similarly to e.g. code coverage tools, the build could be run with or without
the tool?
@mfenes I'm not proficient in Ant, I managed to run the tool the simplest
way possible that I could figure out. If you could implement this so that the
tool is optional, you could do this. I don't know how to do this.
> in the commits, there are test code changes, too. Are these related to
the error prone compiler change, or these are just other bugs which you've
fixed?
All changes in this PR are imposed by error-prone only.
---
