[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2285?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12838240#action_12838240
]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-2285:
---------------------------------------
bq. I don't share the same feeling ... I think it's a strong capability - write
a method which doesn't need to start w/ testXYZ just to be run by JUnit (though
I do both for clarity). I think moving to JUnit 4 only simplifies things, as it
allows testing classes w/o the need to extend TestCase. But I'm not going to
argue about it here, I'd like to keep this issue contained, and short. So I
won't touch the LuceneTestCase deprecation, as it's still controversial judging
by what you say.
This was discussed lots of times in JIRA and frenode IRC (#lucene). The
important thing is: We want all testcases in lucene to be extended from one
class (if Junit4 it's LuceneTestcaseJ4), because we have some additional checks
that should be run before/after each test: FieldCache checkups, merge scheduler
tests, reproducing random test seeds,...
bq. I'll remove those SuppressWarnings then?
Yes, I remove them only whenever i see them.
At the moment, such code cleanup and if they also affect whitespace cleanup,
have the problem that they make merging with the new flex branch (flexible
indexing) harder, so the most important thing is to not simply reformat all the
code. When adding generics, please use the above eclipse codesyste, as we don't
want to have whitespace after commas inside generics.
bq. About generics, there are the internal parts of the code, like using List,
ArrayList etc. Scanning quickly through the list, it looks like most of the
Lucene related warnings are about referencing them ... so it should be also
easy to fix.
Last time I opened Lucene inside Eclipse only produced one type of warning:
"Use of raw type" - but this warning only affected instanceof checks. This is
stupid and a bug in Eclipse. Instanceof checks can never be generic, as the
tests is useless at runtime. So a check for "instance of ArrayList" without
generics is perfectly fine. Adding generics make you feel that there is some
compiler check or runtime checks, both of them are not done. Instanceof is
runtime-only and can never check any generics. So I am against those checks!
But if you find some unneeded casts and missing generics in general, +1.
The instanceof warnings can somehow be switched off in Eclipse, dont know how.
For coding i dont use IDEs (only for automatic refactoring).
> Code cleanup from all sorts of (trivial) warnings
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-2285
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2285
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Shai Erera
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 3.1
>
>
> I would like to do some code cleanup and remove all sorts of trivial
> warnings, like unnecessary casts, problems w/ javadocs, unused variables,
> redundant null checks, unnecessary semicolon etc. These are all very trivial
> and should not pose any problem.
> I'll create another issue for getting rid of deprecated code usage, like
> LuceneTestCase and all sorts of deprecated constructors. That's also trivial
> because it only affects Lucene code, but it's a different type of change.
> Another issue I'd like to create is about introducing more generics in the
> code, where it's missing today - not changing existing API. There are many
> places in the code like that.
> So, with you permission, I'll start with the trivial ones first, and then
> move on to the others.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
