On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 08:28:33PM +0100, Andreas Delmelle wrote:
> I saw one exclusion --unconfirmed cast-- that would seem to stem from my
> recent refactoring in the BlockStackingLMs. Not sure why an exclusion was
> chosen here, but adding an assert statement in the code avoids the warning as
When I build the project or part of it with Eclipse, and run findbugs
afterwards (with ant), I get a number of errors. Now I always make a
clean compile before running findbugs. I do not understand why Eclipse
builds would create findbugs errors where a clean ant build does not.
It makes findbugs s
Not all FOP developers are willing to use findbugs. I hid the findbugs
errors as a courtesy to those FOP developers who do use findbugs, so
they can check their own code based on a clean slate.
FOP's history has left us with a very large number of existing
findbugs errors. It makes no sense to com
On 21 Feb 2011, at 22:18, Vincent Hennebert wrote:
> Did you remove the corresponding entry from the findbugs-exclude.xml
> file before running FindBugs again?
Locally, yes, and confirmed that the assert eliminated the warning. The
exclusions file seems to be needing some more general cleanup, s
On 21/02/11 19:28, Andreas Delmelle wrote:
> On 21 Feb 2011, at 19:15, Vincent Hennebert wrote:
>
>> If we solve issues raised by FindBugs by listing them in an ignore file,
>> is there still a point to use FindBugs at all?
>>
>> It seems to me that some of those issues deserve to be fixed. They s
On 21 Feb 2011, at 21:18, Eric Douglas wrote:
> I always had trouble with the ant build.
> Currently my ant build gets no errors and no warnings and creates fop.jar
> though it tells me junit and xmlunit are not found.
> Last time I put jars in my fop lib folder for junit and xmlunit it told me
I always had trouble with the ant build.
Currently my ant build gets no errors and no warnings and creates
fop.jar though it tells me junit and xmlunit are not found.
Last time I put jars in my fop lib folder for junit and xmlunit it told
me they were found and it wouldn't update the fop jar.
How c
On 21 Feb 2011, at 20:49, Eric Douglas wrote:
> I haven't looked at the trunk lately but 1.0 has a ton of warnings, at
> least in my compile.
> I don't know how much warnings have changed over the versions.
> I think it was originally written to compile on Java 1.4 or maybe even
> 1.3.
Even lower
The current trunk shows no warnings during ANT compile. Please make
reference to the current trunk/HEAD as 1.0 is published and history at this
time.
It's a different matter with certain IDEs, e.g., Eclipse, which set their
warning levels to a more sensitive level than the ANT build.
Although it
I haven't looked at the trunk lately but 1.0 has a ton of warnings, at
least in my compile.
I don't know how much warnings have changed over the versions.
I think it was originally written to compile on Java 1.4 or maybe even
1.3.
1.5 shows thousands of warnings, 1.6 shows more.
Some of the warning
First, the point of the exclusion file is to "bless" warnings that, *by
design*, do not correspond with findbugs set of default warnings. The
presumption is that findbugs actually does identify real or potential bugs,
and there should be no argument about whether this is true or not.
What we are d
On 21 Feb 2011, at 20:28, Andreas Delmelle wrote:
> On 21 Feb 2011, at 19:15, Vincent Hennebert wrote:
>
>> If we solve issues raised by FindBugs by listing them in an ignore file,
>> is there still a point to use FindBugs at all?
>>
>> It seems to me that some of those issues deserve to be fixe
On 21 Feb 2011, at 19:15, Vincent Hennebert wrote:
> If we solve issues raised by FindBugs by listing them in an ignore file,
> is there still a point to use FindBugs at all?
>
> It seems to me that some of those issues deserve to be fixed. They seem
> to point out genuine problems in the code.
Yes, there is are good reasons to continue using findbugs:
(1) it does find bugs
(2) they should not be added the exclude file without careful evaluation
(3) when evaluating, real bugs should be fixed; however, there are some
cases where findbugs reports a warning or error that is in fact not a bu
Hi,
If we solve issues raised by FindBugs by listing them in an ignore file,
is there still a point to use FindBugs at all?
It seems to me that some of those issues deserve to be fixed. They seem
to point out genuine problems in the code.
Vincent
On 18/02/11 08:18, spepp...@apache.org wrote:
>
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49835
--- Comment #18 from Andreas L. Delmelle 2011-02-21
12:30:40 EST ---
Created an attachment (id=26687)
--> (https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26687)
Minimal Test Case PDF - after attached patch
--
Configure bugmail: ht
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49835
--- Comment #17 from Andreas L. Delmelle 2011-02-21
12:30:01 EST ---
Created an attachment (id=26686)
--> (https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26686)
Minimal Test Case - before attached patch
--
Configure bugmail: https
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49835
Andreas L. Delmelle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alpa...@gmail.com
--- Commen
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49835
--- Comment #15 from alpa...@gmail.com 2011-02-21 04:19:14 EST ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> (In reply to comment #13)
> > > The minimal test case must be wrong. The output is the same with or
> > > without the
> > > patch and it behaves
19 matches
Mail list logo
