I've started switching on maven-parent 25 in surefire now and I see literary hundreds of checkstyle errors (I ignore the warnings for now). Most of the stuff is fine with me and I'm on fixing them for a couple of days already.
But there's one thing that struck me and that I'm a bit reluctant to change - and I'd like your opinion on it. We have for example this method: private @Nonnull List<String> getExcluded() ... Checkstyle now tells me that the @Nonnull should preceed the private modifier: @Nonnull private List<String> getExcluded() ... Especially as Java 8 introduced the notion of annotated type declarations (as in @Nonnull String myNeverNullVariable; ), I think that this particular @Nonnull annotation should be right in front of the return type and not before the visibility modifier. The message is thrown by the ModifierOrder check (which does other good things) and that one can't be configured to behave differently. So now I'd have to specifically ignore that warning on each method for which we qualify the return type with @Nonnull / @Nullable. What's you pick on this? Is the form suggested by checkstyle really to be preferred? I'd open an issue for them if you also think that it might need some tweaking. Thanks, Andreas 2014-10-14 8:34 GMT+02:00 Hervé BOUTEMY <[email protected]>: > Le mardi 14 octobre 2014 09:28:21 Olivier Lamy a écrit : > > On 14 October 2014 05:01, Hervé BOUTEMY <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 2. if we configured Checkstyle to report an error, this means check > should > > > fail: if you find that it should not fail, please help improve > Checkstyle > > > configuration by setting severity to warning only > > > > /me not a checkstyle expert configuration :-) > this makes me remember there is a feature improvement for m-checkstyle-p > 2.13 > that I should explain: I was not a Checkstyle configuration master and felt > like you > Than I consistently reported Checkstyle rule name and category in every > message and report, and a link to Checkstyle documentation for each rule > [1] > > this gives a good intro to Checkstyle configuration and help a lot when > needing > to @SuppressWarnings( "checkstyle:name of rule, in lowercase") > > > /me asking himself if having such hard checkstyle requirement help to > > improve user experience. > from my perspective, previous feature really improved m-checkstyle-p > experience > and I know I should submit patches to Checkstyle itself, because I think > this > could help their users too when using bare-Checkstyle > > Regards, > > Hervé > > > [1] > http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-checkstyle-plugin/checkstyle.html > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
