(1) CodeIssue is a snapshot analysis and is currently implemented in that 
fashion.  And I think it makes more sense as a snapshot analysis. 

(2) An idea that I had would be to send the number of analyzed files.  Sort of 
like UnitTest where we send all files regardless if there is a pass or fail.  
We could send all CodeIssue regardless if a violation was found.  To do this we 
would have to pass the src directory to the sensor (again much like the Junit 
Sensor). 

Thanks, Aaron


----- Original Message -----
From: Philip Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Friday, September 29, 2006 10:01 am
Subject: Re: [HACKYSTAT-DEV-L] Interesting problem in CodeIssue
To: Aaron Akihisa Kagawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Discussion list for hackystat 
developers <[email protected]>

> It seems to me that there are two interesting issues here:
> 
> (1) Should CodeIssue data be analyzed in a "latest snapshot" fashion?
> 
> For example, with Coverage and FileMetric data, our analyses assume 
> that 
> the latest obtained data is what the users want to know about.
> 
> On the other hand, with DevEvent and UnitTest data, our analyses 
> assume 
> that users want to know about the "aggregate" results for a given day.
> 
> Currently, CodeIssues are analyzed in an "aggregate" fashion. I 
> think 
> arguments can be made for both approaches!
> 
> (2) How to differentiate "0 issues found" from "sensor did not run".
> 
> As Aaron notes, this has come up before.  Basically, we need to 
> design the 
> sensor to be able to send an "empty" dataset and the analyses to 
> interpret 
> that correctly.
> 
> Cheers,
> Philip
> 
> --On Wednesday, September 27, 2006 9:59 AM -1000 Aaron Akihisa 
> Kagawa 
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > Hey Guys,
> >
> > here is an interesting problem. I just fixed all the CodeIssues 
> in a
> > module and sent CodeIssue data. I ran the analyses to see if the
> > CodeIssues went down to zero.  It didn't.  Hm... the problem is 
> that zero
> > CodeIssue means that no data is sent. Its just as though I didn't 
> run the
> > sensor at all.  I started to think about this problem a while 
> ago; see
> > http://hackydev.ics.hawaii.edu:8080/browse/HACK-393 .
> >
> > Anyone have any ideas on how to solve this?
> >
> > thanks, Aaron
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Reply via email to