I'm all for generating and publishing this.
The CPD results highlight a question I had: what's up with the amount of duplication between org/apache/mahout/df/mapred and org/apache/mahout/df/mapreduce -- what is the difference supposed to be. PMD is complaining a lot about the "foo == false" vs "!foo" style. I prefer the latter too but we had agreed to use the former, so we could disable this check if possible. Checkstyle: can we set it to allow a 120 character line, and adjust it to consider an indent to be 2 spaces? it's flagging like every line of code right now ! On that note, if possible, I would suggest disabling the following FindBugs checks, as they are flagging a lot of stuff that isn't 'wrong', to me. SE_NO_SERIALVERSIONID I completely disagree with it. serialVersionUID itself is bad practice, in my book. EI_EXPOSE_REP2 it's a fair point but only relevant to security, and we have no such issue. The items it flags are done on purpose for performance, it looks like. SQL_PREPARED_STATEMENT_GENERATED_FROM_NONCONSTANT_STRING SQL_NONCONSTANT_STRING_PASSED_TO_EXECUTE It's a good point in general, but I'm the only one writing JDBC code, and there is actually no security issue here. It's a false positive and we could disable this. SE_BAD_FIELD This one is a little aggressive. It assumes that types not known to be Serializable must not be Serializable, which isn't true. RV_RETURN_VALUE_IGNORED It's a decent idea but flags a lot of legitimate code. For example it's complaining about ignoring Queue.poll(), which, like a lot of Collection API methods, UWF_FIELD_NOT_INITIALIZED_IN_CONSTRUCTOR I don't necessarily agree with this one, explicitly setting fields to null and primitives to zero? tidy but I'm not used to it. I didn't see anything big flagged, good, but we should all have a look at the results and tweak accordingly. In some cases it had a good small point, or I was indifferent about the approach it was suggesting versus what was in the code, so I changed to comply with the check. On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 8:26 PM, Isabel Drost <isa...@apache.org> wrote: > > Hello, > > I just ran several code analysis reports over the Mahout source code. > Results are published at > > http://people.apache.org/~isabel/mahout_site/mahout-core/project-reports.html > > It includes several reports on code quality, test coverage, java docs > and the like. When generated regularly say on Hudson I think it could > be beneficial both for us (for getting a quick impression of where > cleanup is necessary most) as well as for potential users. > > I would like to see a third tab added to our homepage that points to > a page containing reports for each of our modules. I would try to cleanup the > generated site a little before - we certainly do not need the "Project > information" stuff in there, as most of this is already generated > through forest. In addition I can take care of setting up a hudson > job to recreate the site on a regular schedule. > > Cheers, > Isabel > > -- > |\ _,,,---,,_ Web: <http://www.isabel-drost.de> > /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ > |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-' > '---''(_/--' `-'\_) (fL) IM: <xmpp://main...@spaceboyz.net> > >
