Hi All,
Yes it is sensible to add FindBugs into the default target, but it
should be done after the committers vote to accept the new FindBugs
configuration. At the moment Findbugs is not yet accepted by everyone
due to the sub-optimal configuration.
Glenn; thanks for doing the initial analysis of the exclusions. I'm
happy with the approach you propose to improve the Findbugs
configuration. it would be good if the other committers could review and
give feedback also.
Thanks,
Chris
On 04/08/2014 23:00, Glenn Adams wrote:
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Luis Bernardo <lmpmberna...@gmail.com
<mailto:lmpmberna...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I suggest also to make running findbugs part of the default ant
task so that we don't forget to do it!
Good suggestion.
On 8/4/14, 5:43 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
I have performed a brief study of the current findbugs exclusions
file. At present there are 1094 exclusions covering 101 distinct
exclusions types. Of these types, half (~50) have 3 or fewer
exclusions.
I plan to start cleaning up these exclusions by first fixing all
types having 10 or fewer exclusions. This will leave
approximately 25 types of exclusions to handle in a second fix pass.
Eventually, I will identify in the exclusions file all exclusion
types that should not be permitted to be added, i.e., that must
be fixed. I expect that some exclusion types will remain, such as:
* BC_UNCONFIRMED_CAST
* EI_EXPOSE_REP
* EI_EXPOSE_REP2
* PZLA_PREFER_ZERO_LENGTH_ARRAYS
* UWF_FIELD_NOT_INITIALIZED_IN_CONSTRUCTOR
Those that remain (and added in the future) should be subject to
an explicit design choice, and not merely to silence a warning.
Once I sort this out, I will ask for a vote on enabling findbugs
in nightly builds.
