lets not start tweaking code for tweaking's sake. -igor
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 11:57 AM, nino martinez wael <[email protected]> wrote: > Yeah I know, one has to have a sense of code regarding some of those > violations. But are very good to have as an indicator, at work I've > removed some of the rules from the rule set as they do not fit our > programming style. We value code readability very high, although it's > a constant battle between developers. > > Regarding reading code is a completely different matter. When I see > something like "!foo", I just read it "not foo". You can miss the > exclamation, but you can also miss one equal sign and have a fatal > problem. > > One of the most annoying ones are if you create something serializable > you also have to declare an id. Another one are that eclipse by > default generates methods that are pulled to an interface abstract, > but one of the rules says it's duplicate signature since it's an > interface :) So theres a secret battle between eclipse and the > ruleset.. > > But most of the are good. > > regards Nino > > 2010/3/23 Jeremy Thomerson <[email protected]>: >> 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 >>> >> >
