On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 6:35 AM Christopher Schultz < ch...@christopherschultz.net> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > Leon, > > On 2/5/19 05:35, Leon Rosenberg wrote: > > A little background on the original question: we have some legal > > issues with a client, among other things, he claims that our code > > isn't documented well, because he run checkstyle on it, and it > > showed 6000 errors. My argumentation was that default checkstyle > > settings aren't telling anything about code quality (unless agreed > > upon upfront). I run checkstyle with default settings on tomcat > > code base and it showed 85.412 errors using sun code checks (yes, > > those from 1996). Most of them are like: > > > > AbstractFramedStreamSourceChannel<AjpClientChannel,AbstractAjpClientSt > reamSourceChannel,AbstractAjpClientStreamSinkChannel> > > > > > this line produces multiple warnings, for example ',' not followed by a > > whitespace and such. > > > > if(attachments == null) - if not followed by a whitespace etc. > > > > Hence if such a mature product like tomcat (with 10.000.000 > > installations) contains 85412 errors and is considered well > > documented, he is using the wrong tool for the task. > > LOL try running checkstyle or SpotBugs against WebLogic and see what > happens. > Yep. That's quite a ridiculous claim by that client. When it comes to FOSS, though, I always remind complaining clients that they can get their money back ;) Best, Igal
