maven-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kristian Rosenvold <kristian.rosenv...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: errors reported by Checkstyle
Date Sun, 26 Oct 2014 06:46:38 GMT
I dont mind the checkstyle stuff, but we have /not/ had a vote that
mandates this to be a requirement. Until we do so I think we should
safely just add "skip" to checkstyle where it's inappropriate, or
ignore more stuff.

Kristian

2014-10-25 20:36 GMT+02:00 Andreas Gudian <andreas.gudian@gmail.com>:
> I've started switching on maven-parent 25 in surefire now and I see
> literary hundreds of checkstyle errors (I ignore the warnings for now).
> Most of the stuff is fine with me and I'm on fixing them for a couple of
> days already.
>
> But there's one thing that struck me and that I'm a bit reluctant to change
> - and I'd like your opinion on it.
>
> We have for example this method:
>    private @Nonnull List<String> getExcluded() ...
>
> Checkstyle now tells me that the @Nonnull should preceed the private
> modifier:
>
>    @Nonnull private List<String> getExcluded() ...
>
> Especially as Java 8 introduced the notion of annotated type declarations
> (as in @Nonnull String myNeverNullVariable; ), I think that this particular
> @Nonnull annotation should be right in front of the return type and not
> before the visibility modifier.
>
> The message is thrown by the ModifierOrder check (which does other good
> things) and that one can't be configured to behave differently.
>
> So now I'd have to specifically ignore that warning on each method for
> which we qualify the return type with @Nonnull / @Nullable.
>
> What's you pick on this? Is the form suggested by checkstyle really to be
> preferred? I'd open an issue for them if you also think that it might need
> some tweaking.
>
> Thanks,
> Andreas
>
>
>
> 2014-10-14 8:34 GMT+02:00 Hervé BOUTEMY <herve.boutemy@free.fr>:
>
>> Le mardi 14 octobre 2014 09:28:21 Olivier Lamy a écrit :
>> > On 14 October 2014 05:01, Hervé BOUTEMY <herve.boutemy@free.fr> wrote:
>> > > 2. if we configured Checkstyle to report an error, this means check
>> should
>> > > fail: if you find that it should not fail, please help improve
>> Checkstyle
>> > > configuration by setting severity to warning only
>> >
>> > /me not a checkstyle expert configuration :-)
>> this makes me remember there is a feature improvement for m-checkstyle-p
>> 2.13
>> that I should explain: I was not a Checkstyle configuration master and felt
>> like you
>> Than I consistently reported Checkstyle rule name and category in every
>> message and report, and a link to Checkstyle documentation for each rule
>> [1]
>>
>> this gives a good intro to Checkstyle configuration and help a lot when
>> needing
>> to @SuppressWarnings( "checkstyle:name of rule, in lowercase")
>>
>> > /me asking himself if having such hard checkstyle requirement help to
>> > improve user experience.
>> from my perspective, previous feature really improved m-checkstyle-p
>> experience
>> and I know I should submit patches to Checkstyle itself, because I think
>> this
>> could help their users too when using bare-Checkstyle
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Hervé
>>
>>
>> [1]
>> http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-checkstyle-plugin/checkstyle.html
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>
>>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org


Mime
View raw message