Is the proposal to disallow TODOs that do not have a JIRA case number? I’d be +1 to that.
I’m much less concerned with the problem that TODO(DRILL-abcd) might linger after in the code after DRILL-abcd has been fixed. Julian On May 5, 2015, at 12:38 PM, Jason Altekruse <altekruseja...@gmail.com> wrote: > It could optionally be passed manually as a flag, but we already have the > build step that is generating the git.properties file, we could issue the > same type of call to git to try to pull the JIRA number out of the commit > message. > > On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 12:34 PM, Chris Westin <chriswesti...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I like that idea, but how would the build know what JIRA you're working on? >> >> On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 12:25 PM, Jason Altekruse <altekruseja...@gmail.com >>> >> wrote: >> >>> We should also consider adding something to the build that will automate >>> the process of checking for todo comments containing the JIRA number >> being >>> fixed. This would allow reviewers to easily verify that a JIRA being >> closed >>> is not leaving related TODOs in the code (possibly unit tests added by >> the >>> reporter of the issue, or comments mentioned in another patch that wanted >>> to relate a problem they saw in a known outstanding JIRA). This can be >>> mitigated by mentioning the relevant areas in the code when filing a >> JIRA, >>> but this would also be a helpful safety net to keep the code cleaner. >>> >>> - Jason >>> >>> On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Sudheesh Katkam <skat...@maprtech.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hey y’all, >>>> >>>> For consistency across code, Chris had recommended using >> TODO(DRILL-####) >>>> format for todos in comments, where #### is the JIRA number. If there >> are >>>> no objections, let’s try to stick to that format. >>>> >>>> Thank you, >>>> Sudheesh >>> >>
