> On 22 May 2015, at 17:04, Andreas Delmelle <andreas.delme...@telenet.be> 
> wrote:
> 
> Hi Simon
> 
>> On 22 May 2015, at 12:59, Simon Steiner <simonsteiner1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> We have an old branch with findbugs passing I was going to port this to
>> trunk.
<snip />

I realise now Simon's remark may have been referring to XGC, not to FOP (?) 
Or do we really have an old FOP branch there which passed all those 124 
warnings... Would seem strange, since a lot of those must have been in there 
for quite some time already. That would be a *very* old branch, then. :-)

At any rate, in the meantime, I have already done 45 (high and medium 
priority), of which a handful are code fixes.

The ones related to default encoding, as already suggested, would be added to 
the unapproved exclusion list.

The remaining ones would become approved exclusions.

About the latter set, one question:
Suppose I add following to the approved exclusions

  <Match>
    <Bug pattern="URF_UNREAD_PUBLIC_OR_PROTECTED_FIELD"/>
    <Or>
      <Class name="org.apache.fop.fo.properties.CommonMarginInline"/>
      <Class name="org.apache.fop.fo.properties.CommonRelativePosition"/>
    </Or>
  </Match>
  <Match>
    <Bug pattern="UUF_UNUSED_PUBLIC_OR_PROTECTED_FIELD"/>
    <Class name="org.apache.fop.fo.properties.CommonAural"/>
  </Match>

and this concerns basically ALL fields of said classes.

Is the convention then to insert the commented annotation once for every field 
or does it suffice to add one per class?

I am fine with both. Just thought I'd ask before committing to trunk.



KR

Andreas

Reply via email to