I would reject patchs to fix some of those. Some of those so-called "violations" are just their coding style not being the same as ours.
For instance, they say there are 218 "violations" where we have 'if (foo == false)' - which they say should be simplified, I'm assuming to be 'if (!foo)'. Personally, I write mine as "foo == false" because it is much harder to miss that than it is to miss "!" as you're reading through the code. Another example: "empty method in abstract class should be abstract". No, it shouldn't. It's a method designed to be overridden for additional functionality if you so desire. There might be some that are worth fixing. But as I mention, there are some that are better left alone. -- Jeremy Thomerson http://www.wickettraining.com On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 6:39 AM, nino martinez wael < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi I wondered > > if it would be interesting if I started to make wicket more in > compliance with the rules defined here: > http://nemo.sonarsource.org/drilldown/violations/44196?priority=MAJOR > ? > > I'd of course start by submitting patches.. > > So are it interesting? > > regards Nino >
