Hi, Another note on sonar, do you agree with the rule: - squid:S00112
Regards On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Philippe Mouawad < [email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Felix for your answers. > Mine below. > > On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Felix Schumacher <felix.schumacher@ > internetallee.de> wrote: > >> Am 21.12.2016 um 20:51 schrieb Philippe Mouawad: >> >>> Hello, >>> I reviewed Sonar errors and we have 2 major types of errors: >>> >>> - Make "xxxx" transient or serializable: >>> - Should we ignore those ? >>> >> In the short run, we should definitely ignore those, as we know that we >> are not really into serializing those objects, but we should strive to get >> those fixed in the long run. >> > > >> >> - If yes , I propose to add: >>> - <property name="sonar.issue.ignore.multicriteria" >>> value="squid:S1948" /> >>> - @Felix, Is this correct ? >>> >> I will try it, but if you have found it in the docs, it should work, >> shouldn't it? >> > > I finally configured it in Sonar administration. You can have a look > > - *Administration > General Settings > Analysis Scope > Issues*. > > http://docs.sonarqube.org/display/SONAR/Narrowing+the+ > Focus#NarrowingtheFocus-IgnoreIssues > > We can also do it this way in ant: > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/21825469/configure- > sonar-sonar-issue-ignore-multicriteria-through-maven > > > - Either re-interrupt this method or rethrow the >>> "InterruptedException": >>> - Is the fix to call Thread.currentThread().interrupt(); in the >>> currently silent catch block ? >>> >> I always have to look it up, but I think that it is one way to handle it. >> > > I'll start fixing this way. If anybody is willing to help on this, then we > can try to organize the fixing plan. > I prefer that we have precisely a look at each place where fix is > introduced to ensure it won't have side effects > >> >> Felix >> >>> >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> >> > > > -- > Cordialement. > Philippe Mouawad. > > > -- Cordialement. Philippe Mouawad.
