Since the FOP project itself does not use any IDE for builds, then the ANT build process should be considered the standard process for compilation, junit tests, checkstyle tests, findbugs tests, etc.
I always run: ant clean junit checkstyle findbugs in order to verify no reported errors before I commit a change. I notice also that the nightly build target does not run all the junit tests. It would be better if it run all of them plus checkstyle and findbugs. G. On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 12:34 AM, Simon Pepping <spepp...@leverkruid.eu>wrote: > When I build the project or part of it with Eclipse, and run findbugs > afterwards (with ant), I get a number of errors. Now I always make a > clean compile before running findbugs. I do not understand why Eclipse > builds would create findbugs errors where a clean ant build does not. > It makes findbugs seem fickle. > > I just tested it. With 'ant clean findbugs' I get 0 errors and > warnings. With eclipse clean and build project, I get 23 low priority > warnings. > > Simon > > On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 12:58:06PM -0700, Glenn Adams wrote: > > The current trunk shows no warnings during ANT compile. Please make > > reference to the current trunk/HEAD as 1.0 is published and history at > this > > time. > > > > It's a different matter with certain IDEs, e.g., Eclipse, which set their > > warning levels to a more sensitive level than the ANT build. > > > > Although it would be nice to eliminate such additional warnings, it is > not > > as high priority IMO as ensuring that new compile, checkstyle, or > findbugs > > warnings/errors do not appear during ANT builds. At the same time, > warnings > > that do appear should not automatically be excluded without careful, > manual > > review. > > > > G. > > > > On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Eric Douglas <edoug...@blockhouse.com > >wrote: > > > > > I haven't looked at the trunk lately but 1.0 has a ton of warnings, at > > > least in my compile. > > > I don't know how much warnings have changed over the versions. > > > I think it was originally written to compile on Java 1.4 or maybe even > > > 1.3. > > > 1.5 shows thousands of warnings, 1.6 shows more. > > > Some of the warnings are quirky (raw type list?), some are just > wasteful > > > (dead code? Local variable never referenced?). > > > If there's code which is actually incorrect logic it needs to be fixed. > > > If there's code which is just incomplete logic, maybe setting something > > > up for a future improvement someone wanted to add, that should be > > > removed and placed in a separate to do list document. >
