Ah, didn't see that one because it's even older than the other issue I found. Looks like this has been waiting for a long time. I'll take further discussion to the JIRA.
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 11:52 AM, david.w.smi...@gmail.com < david.w.smi...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 to this idea. Note this is tracked as > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3973 > > ~ David Smiley > Freelance Apache Lucene/Solr Search Consultant/Developer > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley > > On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Mike Drob <md...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Devs, >> >> I'd like to bring up static analysis for Solr and Lucene again. It's been >> about a year since the last conversation[1] and it might be time to >> revisit. There is a JIRA issue too[2], but it's also in need of some love. >> >> ASF already provides a Sonar instance that we might be able to use[3], >> alternatively we can just hook up whatever static analysis tool works well >> with ant (this is most of them) and rely on Jenkins to provide reports. The >> Eclipse FindBugs plug-in works pretty well for me personally. >> >> I will plan on submitting first some patches to fix issues found as >> "critical" in my local instance. Then I will work on adding analysis to the >> build, and figuring out how to fail the build if we exceed a certain >> threshold. And then we can incrementally lower the threshold while fixing >> additional issues. >> >> Does this sound like a reasonable plan? I want to give folks a heads up >> before creating a bunch of issues - FindBugs currently reports just over >> 500 hits on trunk. >> >> Mike >> >> [1]: http://markmail.org/thread/pxf7lg7kzflnknmm >> [2]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-5130 >> [3]: https://analysis.apache.org/ >> > >
