Hi Ryan,
Just to say: thanks for your advice :-) That confirms that like for
Checkstyle we should go through the rules and pick the ones we really
want to follow. I won’t have much time to allocate for this in the next
days unfortunately, but at some point I will...
Cheers,
Vincent
Ryan Gustafs
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 6:11 AM, Max Berger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Vincent Hennebert schrieb:
> >> 18000 PMD violations is just sick. Things like rule [1] doesn't really
> help
> >> the source code. We can do that if we get a budget for
> nuclear-power-plant-grade
> >> software.
> > Same her
Max Berger:
> since this came up, here is a list of tools I use for software quality
> checking (and all them them can check for generic list types). All of
> them have Eclipse and maven plugins (and ant tasks, and )
Incidentally, I would be happy too if we had some written-down
guidelines
>- Oorspronkelijk bericht -
>Van: Vincent Hennebert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Verzonden: vrijdag, juni 13, 2008 08:31 PM
>FWIW, I do re-assign local variables sometimes (rarely). When the new
>value serves the same purpose, and creating a new variable with another
>name would actually loo
Hi,
Thanks for your explanation.
Max Berger wrote:
>>> [1]
>>> http://pmd.sourceforge.net/rules/optimizations.html#MethodArgumentCouldBeFinal
>
>> +1
>> I must say, I’ve never really grasped the benefit of doing this. I’d be
>> happy to be enlightened, though.
>
> Sure:
>
> Declaring a parame
>- Oorspronkelijk bericht -
>Van: Max Berger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Verzonden: vrijdag, juni 13, 2008 01:11 PM
>
>> +1
>> I must say, I’ve never really grasped the benefit of doing this. I’d be
>> happy to be enlightened, though.
>
>Sure:
>
>Declaring a parameter / variable as final mak
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Vincent,
Vincent Hennebert schrieb:
>> 18000 PMD violations is just sick. Things like rule [1] doesn't really help
>> the source code. We can do that if we get a budget for
>> nuclear-power-plant-grade
>> software.
> Same here I guess. Now may be the
Hi,
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> I'm scared by the thought of having a program "clean" our source code
> changing lots of files. I prefer the approach that the devs shall try to
> improve the code while they are working on it.
Agreed. Even if that doesn’t prevent us from scheduling a big “code
cleanu
Max Berger wrote:
Hi Max,
Many of these could be automatically solved using the eclipse "cleanup"
tools (which can actually be called on the whole src dir!). However,
that would result in a change in almost every file, and making merging
of separate branches almost impossible. This shoul
I'm scared by the thought of having a program "clean" our source code
changing lots of files. I prefer the approach that the devs shall try to
improve the code while they are working on it.
BTW, I think there's one or two rules in our Checkstyle file that
probably should/could be removed. For exam
Dear Fop-Devs,
Jeremias is right - you actually need to use the output of these
reports. At this time there are:
1849 checkstyle violations
18702 pmd violations
possible (find)bugs.
Many of these could be automatically solved using the eclipse
"cleanup" tools (which can actually be called
Well, Glen is the only FOP developer who's actually seen me in
person... Although Jeremias has seen my avatar... ;-)
Clay
On 6/11/08, Jeremias Maerki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ;-) I don't make assumptions what sex the people are that work with FOP
> (committer or not). In Switzerland, it's b
;-) I don't make assumptions what sex the people are that work with FOP
(committer or not). In Switzerland, it's best practice to include both
forms if you address a group of people with unknown composition.
On 11.06.2008 09:44:39 Peter B. West wrote:
> Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> > I'm using FindBug
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
I'm using FindBugs (as Eclipse plug-in) for some time now and it is
really good. Not that I can really say yes to 100% of the suggestions.
But about 98%.
I'm not sure about the benefit of those reports. We've had the
Checkstyle report for years now, but I doubt many people
I'm using FindBugs (as Eclipse plug-in) for some time now and it is
really good. Not that I can really say yes to 100% of the suggestions.
But about 98%.
I'm not sure about the benefit of those reports. We've had the
Checkstyle report for years now, but I doubt many people look at that
often. Havi
Hi Max,
Max Berger wrote:
> Dear Fop-Devs,
>
> for the actual implementation, I think it would be a good idea to create
> a second lib-directory (e.g. buildsupport, or buildlib), and add the
> required libs there, so that we're all using the same tools. These libs
> would only be needed during bu
Dear Fop-Devs,
for the actual implementation, I think it would be a good idea to
create a second lib-directory (e.g. buildsupport, or buildlib), and
add the required libs there, so that we're all using the same tools.
These libs would only be needed during build, and not during deployment.
On Jun 10, 2008, at 12:26, Vincent Hennebert wrote:
By all means, go for it.
I second this.
That can’t hurt, IMO, and this will probably be
quite helpful (or scary, maybe ;-) ).
Of course, just setting them up will not be enough. Their suggestions
will also have to be followed. Given that th
Hi Max,
By all means, go for it. That can’t hurt, IMO, and this will probably be
quite helpful (or scary, maybe ;-) ).
Of course, just setting them up will not be enough. Their suggestions
will also have to be followed. Given that there are already something
like 18,000 checkstyle warnings in the
19 matches
Mail list logo
