Hi Vincent, in Intellij Idea, I have also annoying yellow marks in my code. So if the common policy is to not violate any warning, I won't do that.
Best Regards Alex - e-mail: alexanderk...@gmx.net web: www.alexanderkiel.net On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 10:41 +0100, Vincent Hennebert wrote: > Hi Alexander, > > Alexander Kiel wrote: > > Hi Vincent, > > > >> Should the rule be disabled because of that? Having proper javadoc on at > >> least public methods is very important. OTOH, this is actually not > >> something Checkstyle can verify. How many methods in the code base have > >> totally useless comments that are there just to avoid a Checkstyle > >> warning... > >> > >> I think I’d prefer to keep the rule, but wouldn’t veto its removal. > > > > I don't vote for removal too, I only vote for the right to violate it in > > cases one can't add any useful information in the comment. > > Hmmm, I think that once we’ve agreed on a Checkstyle config we really > want to follow, we won’t accept any warning at all. It was my intent to > propose that anyway. I think it’s more annoying to have little yellow > exclamation marks attached to every file that contains Checkstyle > warnings (in Eclipse, at least), than have dull javadoc comments. > > > Vincent > >
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
