On 25/04/12 17:03, Glenn Adams wrote: > how does this differ from the current checkstyle-5.5.xml rules that are the > current default in fop?
The following rules have been removed: • prohibiting the usage of @author but we can add it back • CSOFF and CSOK • Double (No idea what it is about. It doesn’t appear in the list of available checks for Checkstyle 5.5.) • FileContentsHolder (same) • InnerAssignments • EqualsHashCode The following rules have been modified: • AvoidStarImport: severity changed from error to warning • ConstantName: removed log exception • WhitespaceAfter: added typecast to follow Sun’s conventions Vincent > On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Vincent Hennebert > <vhenneb...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Ok, reviving a thread that has been dormant for too long. >> >> Attached is an updated version of the proposed Checkstyle configuration. >> I removed/relaxed the following rules: >> • EmptyBlock (allow comments) >> • ExplicitInitialization (not automatically fixable) >> • NoWhitespaceAfter with ARRAY_INIT token >> • ParenPad >> >> Note that I’m not happy with removing that last rule. I agree with >> Alexios that a consistent style makes reading and debugging easier. That >> wouldn’t be too bad if the original style were preserved in every source >> file, but this will clearly not happen. In fact, the mixing of styles >> has already started after the complex scripts patch was applied. I still >> removed the rule though. >> >> However, I left the MethodParamPad rule in order to remain compliant >> with Sun’s recommendations: >> >> http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/documentation/codeconventions-141388.html#475 >> I’d also like to keep the NoWhitespaceAfter rule, as whitespace after >> unary operators increases too much the risk of misreading the statement >> IMO. >> >> Finally, I left the LineLength rule to 110. Long lines impede code >> readability too much IMO. They also make side-by-side comparison harder. >> I note that some even recommend to leave the check to 100. I think 110 >> should be an acceptable compromise. >> >> Please let me know what you think. >> Thanks, >> Vincent >> >> >> On 03/02/12 17:45, Vincent Hennebert wrote: >>> Hi All, >>> >>> it is well-known that people are not happy with the Checkstyle file we >>> have in FOP. And there’s no point enforcing the application of >>> Checkstyle rules if we don’t agree with them in the first place. >>> >>> I’ve finally taken on me to create a new Checkstyle file that follows >>> modern development practices. I’ve been testing it on my own projects >>> for a few months now and I’m happy with it, so I’d like to share it with >>> the community. The idea is that once we’ve reached consensus on the >>> Checkstyle rules we want to apply, we could set up a no warning policy >>> and enforce it by running Checkstyle in CI. >>> >>> I’m also taking this as an opportunity to propose that we adopt a common >>> Checkstyle policy to all the sub-projects of XML Graphics. So once we’ve >>> agreed on a set of rules we would apply them to FOP and XGC immediately, >>> and eventually also to Batik, and keep them in sync. >>> >>> We would also apply the rules to the test files as well as the main >>> code. Tests are as important as the actual code and there is no reason >>> why they shouldn’t be checked. >>> >>> It is likely that the current code will not be compliant with the new >>> rules. However, most of them are really just about the syntax, so >>> I believe it should be fairly straightforward to make the code at least >>> 90% compliant just by applying Eclipse’s command-line code formatter. >>> >>> Please find the Checkstyle file attached. It is based on Checkstyle 5.5 >>> and basically follows Sun’s recommendations for Java styling with a few >>> adaptations. What’s noteworthy is the following: >>> >>> • Removed checks for Javadoc. What we want is quality Javadoc, and that >>> is not something that Checkstyle can check. Having Javadoc checks is >>> counter-productive as it forces us to put {@inheritDoc} everywhere, or >>> to create truly useless doc like the following: >>> /** >>> * Returns the thing. >>> * @return the thing >>> */ >>> public Thing getThing() { >>> return thing; >>> } >>> This is just clutter really. I think it should be left to peer review >>> to check whether a Javadoc comment is properly written, or whether the >>> lack thereof is justified. There’s an excellent blog entry from >>> Torsten Curdt about this: >>> http://vafer.org/blog/20050323095453/ >>> • Removed check for file and method lengths. I don’t think it makes >>> sense to define a maximum size for files and methods. Sometimes >>> a 10-line method is way too big, sometimes it makes sense to have it >>> reach 20 lines. Same for files: it’s ok to reach 1000 lines if the >>> class contains several inner classes. If it doesn’t, then it’s >>> probably too big. I don’t think there is any definite figure we can >>> agree on and blindly follow, so I think sizes should be left to peer >>> review. >>> • However, I left the check for maximum line length because unreasonably >>> long lines make the code hard to follow. I increased it to 110 >>> though to follow the evolution of monitor sizes. But as Peter >>> suggested me, we probably want to keep it low in order to make >>> side-by-side comparison easy. >>> • I added a check for the order of imports; this is to reduce noise in >>> diffs when committing. I think most of us have configured their IDE to >>> automatically organise imports when saving changes to a file. This is >>> a great feature because it allows to keep the list of imports >>> up-to-date. But in order to avoid constant back and forth changes when >>> different committers change the same file, I think it makes sense that >>> we all have the same configuration. I modeled this list after >>> Jeremias’ one, that I progressively inferred from his commits. >>> >>> Please let me know what you think. I’m inclined to follow lazy consensus >>> on this, and apply the proposed changes if nobody has objected within >>> 2 weeks. If anybody feels that a formal vote is necessary, feel free to >>> say so. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Vincent >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@xmlgraphics.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@xmlgraphics.apache.org >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@xmlgraphics.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@xmlgraphics.apache.org
