On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 7:56 AM, Simon Steiner <simonsteiner1...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Why not start with a lax exclude and evolve it over time. If you don’t
> enable it now, you create more work since we will keep getting new warnings
> put in and glens work increases.
>

To summarize my current work. I basically threw out the many auto-generated
and manually added exclusions that had been in the prior exclusion file
(before I started doing cleanup), and then I put in broad matches for each
type currently being hit. This was (is) a temporary state of affairs while
I perform cleanup.

Since then I have been fixing those items that produce warnings, starting
at items with least number of warnings, and working my way up. I am
presently working on fixing the warnings that generate between 10 and 20
hits each. At the upper end of the hit count, we have:

131 BC_UNCONFIRMED_CAST (*)
 88 DM_NUMBER_CTOR
 84 EI_EXPOSE_REP (*)
 58 UWF_FIELD_NOT_INITIALIZED_IN_CONSTRUCTOR
 55 EI_EXPOSE_REP2 (*)
 46 PZLA_PREFER_ZERO_LENGTH_ARRAYS (*)

Of these, I expect I'll leave broad match filters for the four warning
types marked as (*), although of these, BC_UNCONFIRMED_CAST could generate
run-time exceptions if (unstated) assumptions are violated.

Ideally, we would have no exclusion rules, but practically, I think we will
end up with these four (or perhaps three) marked types being excluded. I
plan to fix other warnings, so not exclude them.

My plan is to finish this cleanup work, then enable put it to a vote, then
enable in nightly builds if we reach consensus.



> Thanks
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vincent Hennebert [mailto:vhenneb...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 04 September 2014 15:48
> To: fop-dev@xmlgraphics.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Enable findbugs
>
> I also think that it’s too early to vote on this. I’m +1 with the idea of
> enabling FindBugs in CI with a proper exclude file, but I believe such a
> file doesn’t exist yet.
>
> I suggest you provide a list of those bug patterns you would like to
> exclude, so that we can discuss which ones are important to use and which
> ones are not. Then we can launch the vote.
>
> For now, I must vote -1.
>
> Vincent
>
> On 04/09/14 15:11, Simon Steiner wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I don’t see how finishing the cleanup affects the vote. Im not aware
> > of what you are currently working on.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > *From:*Glenn Adams [mailto:gl...@skynav.com]
> > *Sent:* 04 September 2014 15:00
> > *To:* FOP Developers
> > *Subject:* Re: [VOTE] Enable findbugs
> >
> > -1 because I'm not ready for this due to still in progress making
> > findbugs clean up; you should coordinate in the future when you know
> > someone else is working on a config change of this sort
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 5:48 AM, Simon Steiner
> > <simonsteiner1...@gmail.com <mailto:simonsteiner1...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >     Hi,
> >
> >     Vote to fail fop on Jenkins if findbugs 2.0.3 finds a warning. The
> exclude
> >     file has been updated so present warning types are excluded
> therefore more
> >     controversial warnings are not enabled.
> >
> >     You would at minimum only maintain exclude file.
> >
> >     The vote will run for 7 days until 11 Sept.
> >
> >     Here's my +1
> >
> >     Thanks
> >
>
>

Reply via email to