Re: Review Request 57697: Good coding practice recommended by static code analysis

2017-03-16 Thread Velmurugan Periasamy
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/57697/#review169204 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Velmurugan Periasamy On March 16, 2017,

Re: Review Request 57697: Good coding practice recommended by static code analysis

2017-03-16 Thread Ramesh Mani
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/57697/#review169198 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Ramesh Mani On March 16, 2017, 6:03 p.m.

Re: Review Request 57697: Good coding practice recommended by static code analysis

2017-03-16 Thread Abhay Kulkarni
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/57697/ --- (Updated March 16, 2017, 6:03 p.m.) Review request for ranger, Madhan Neethiraj

Re: Review Request 57697: Good coding practice recommended by static code analysis

2017-03-16 Thread Abhay Kulkarni
> On March 16, 2017, 5:33 p.m., Colm O hEigeartaigh wrote: > > Why maintain the "ret" variable at all? Why not just "return > > sb.toString().trim();"? Done - Abhay --- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https:

Re: Review Request 57697: Good coding practice recommended by static code analysis

2017-03-16 Thread Colm O hEigeartaigh
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/57697/#review169178 --- Why maintain the "ret" variable at all? Why not just "return sb.t

Review Request 57697: Good coding practice recommended by static code analysis

2017-03-16 Thread Abhay Kulkarni
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/57697/ --- Review request for ranger, Madhan Neethiraj and Velmurugan Periasamy. Bugs: RAN