I think that having SonarQube providing automated analysis ike this is very good. However, we shouldn't consider its suggestions to be gospel either. I agree with Alex that we shouldn't hold back the next release just to make SonarQube happy. I think it's a good idea to try to get at least some of its "blocker" or "critical" suggestions out of the way in the following release, though. Higher quality code will help with future stability, and we're getting to a place where that's starting to be more important. It'll be good to see some kind of measurement of progress there.
- Josh On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Alex Harui <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 6/17/16, 8:30 AM, "Christofer Dutz" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >Hi Alex, > > > > > >I posted the link to my SonarQube several times ... currently there are > >193 blocker issues ... I think I fixed quite some today, but still > >there's a lot to check. > > > > > > > http://dev.c-ware.de:10000/component_issues?id=org.apache.flex.flexjs%3Afl > >exjs-parent#resolved=false|facetMode=debt|severities=BLOCKER > > > > > >The Number of Blocker + Critical Issues currently is around 2000 ... as I > >said we should start working on reducing technical debt. At least on the > >Java side we produce technical debt faster than code :-( I think it would > >be good to check the quality of code produced by the authors themselves. > >The educational benefit is enormous [?] > > Thank you for cleaning up these issues. By "Blocker" I thought you meant > "the jars/swcs don't build" or "examples don't run". IMO, we have can > could ship again without fixing the issues SonarQube is finding, but we > must fix the build and the examples. However, let's see what others > think. Again, I'd rather release sooner and see if Maven attracts new > contributors who might help us clean up. > > Thanks, > -Alex > >
