Hi Alex. PR looks fine.
Thanks, Gilles Le mer. 22 mai 2019 à 17:09, Alex Herbert <alex.d.herb...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > I'm trying to get pmd:check to be useful. > > This means fixing all the PMD violations. To fix some would be a > refactor of reference algorithms which I do not want to start doing. So > I've opted for the easier fix of increasing the allowed complexity. > > Some PMD cheks I had to disable were: > > - AccessorMethodGeneration > > This allows internal private classes to access private methods of the > outer class and vice versa. It could instead be fixed by changing to > package-private methods where appropriate. > > - OnlyOneReturn > > There are many code examples of fast exit from methods with multiple > return statements. > > - BeanMembersShouldSerialize > > I do not think we intend to have the classes as Serializable. > > - DataflowAnomalyAnalysis > > This rule is not very reliable [1]. It does not like a lot of the > algorithms in the code that are established. > > > For one violation in sampling it can either be suppressed, or fixed by > promoting a private class constructor to package-private. I think that > the promotion to a package private constructor is OK. It is for this class: > > LargeMeanPoissonSampler.LargeMeanPoissonSamplerState > > This class is used by the LargeMeanPoissonSamplerCache and is already > package-private. So making the constructor package private seems reasonable. > > > The options to suppress violations [2] are: > > 1. Use annotations > > 2. Use // NOPMD comment at the end of the offending line > > 3. Add suppression to the pmd configuration xml. > > So not wanting to litter the code with comments and annotations I have > updated the PMD xml to exclude certain checks. > > There does not appear to be a separate PMD exclusions file in the manner > of spotbugs. The exclusions performed at the configuration file use > regular expressions so can be configured. But it requires XPath and the > syntax for regular expressions doesn't work with examples I have tried. > I have fixed it with explicit 'or' statements for matching multiple > classes. I have not found out how to match a class and a method in the > same expression. This could be used to narrow the scope of exclusions. > > > All changes are in this PR [3]. Have a look and see if you don't agree > with the changes required. > > > Alex > > > [1] https://github.com/pmd/pmd/issues/873 > > [2] https://pmd.github.io/latest/pmd_userdocs_suppressing_warnings.html > > [3] https://github.com/apache/commons-rng/pull/45 > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
