Jump to: navigation, search

Difference between revisions of "SMILA/Discussions/Checkstyle"

m
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
 +
== SMILA Checkstyle configuration changes ==
 +
 
I'd like to suggest some changes for the checkstyle settings of our current checkstyle configuration file (''brox_checks.xml'') here. IMHO, the current configuration is too strict, produces much javadoc overhead and reduces developer acceptance.
 
I'd like to suggest some changes for the checkstyle settings of our current checkstyle configuration file (''brox_checks.xml'') here. IMHO, the current configuration is too strict, produces much javadoc overhead and reduces developer acceptance.
  
Although I'm not that familiar with checkstyle configuration, I tried to restrict my suggestions to those that should be possible, according to the [http://checkstyle.sourceforge.net Checkstyle 5.3 documentation]. Feel free to add some more suggestions.
+
Although I'm not that familiar with checkstyle configuration, I tried to restrict my suggestions to those that should be possible, according to the [http://checkstyle.sourceforge.net Checkstyle 5.3 documentation].  
  
I'll label the suggestions with a,b,c,etc. so we can make a voting in the table below.
+
I'll label the suggestions with a,b,c,etc. so we can make a voting in the table below. Feel free to add some more suggestions.
  
Furthermore, I'd suggest a different checkstyle configuration for test bundles with some additional changes, see t1,t2,... below.
+
Furthermore, I'd suggest a different checkstyle configuration for test bundles with some ''additional'' changes, see t1,t2,... below.
  
  
Line 35: Line 38:
 
t5) exclude all variables from javadoc check.
 
t5) exclude all variables from javadoc check.
  
 +
 +
'''Votings:'''
  
 
{| {{Greytable}}
 
{| {{Greytable}}

Revision as of 09:56, 28 February 2011

SMILA Checkstyle configuration changes

I'd like to suggest some changes for the checkstyle settings of our current checkstyle configuration file (brox_checks.xml) here. IMHO, the current configuration is too strict, produces much javadoc overhead and reduces developer acceptance.

Although I'm not that familiar with checkstyle configuration, I tried to restrict my suggestions to those that should be possible, according to the Checkstyle 5.3 documentation.

I'll label the suggestions with a,b,c,etc. so we can make a voting in the table below. Feel free to add some more suggestions.

Furthermore, I'd suggest a different checkstyle configuration for test bundles with some additional changes, see t1,t2,... below.


Suggestions:

a) exclude "private" methods from javadoc check.

b) exclude "private" variables from javadoc check.

c) increase allowed method length (e.g. to "100").

d) javadoc methods: allow documented exceptions that are not declared if they are a subclass of java.lang.RuntimeException.

e) javadoc methods: allow documented exceptions that are subclass of one of declared exception.

f) allow inline conditionals


t) different checkstyle configuration for test bundles

t1) exclude check for "magic numbers".

t2) javadoc methods: allow missing param tags.

t3) javadoc methods: allow missing throws tag.

t4) javadoc methods: allow missing return tag.

t5) exclude all variables from javadoc check.


Votings:

Andreas Weber
a) +1
b) +1
c) +1
d) +1
e) +1
f) +1
t) +1
t1) +1
t2) +1
t3) +1
t4) +1
t5) +1