On 3/16/2014 5:35 AM, Michael McCandless wrote: > On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 6:09 AM, Furkan KAMACI <furkankam...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I've run FindBugs for Lucene/Solr project. If you use Intellij IDEA you can >> group the warnings according to their importance. I've opened issues and >> attached patches for top level warnings/errors (and some others) that >> FindBugs found. >> >> On the other hand I have another suggestion for Lucene/Solr project. When I >> develop or lead projects I use Sonar. It's so good and it runs really nice >> open source projects to analyze your code. FindBugs, PMD, Jacoco are just >> some of them. It also calculates the method complexities, LoC and etc. You >> can see a live example from here: >> https://sonar.springsource.org/dashboard/index/4824 > > +1, Sonar looks really nice! > >> I can be volunteer to integrate Sonar into Lucene/Solr project. > > Thank you Furkan.
I haven't yet looked, but the *idea* of Sonar sounds quite awesome. +1 for me on a thank you, Furkan. The "ides of march" spam from Jira on version 4.7 had one benefit relating to this discussion: It put LUCENE-5130 on my radar. Would it be too much administrative @#!* to create an umbrella issue? I'd suggest LUCENE-5130 for this purpose, except that I'm not 100% positive that failing the build is the right answer. I fully understand the motivation ... it would certainly force us to face the issue! A bunch of smaller issues could be created to tackle subsections of the code, or perhaps to tackle a particular type of warning. This really doesn't change how invasive the patches would be, but if they come in smaller chunks, it might be easier to work around them. When it comes to warnings about things like missing serialVersionUID, should we generate a random number for each class, or use a default value? Thanks, Shawn --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
