[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MCHECKSTYLE-341?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16185470#comment-16185470
]
Robert Scholte commented on MCHECKSTYLE-341:
--------------------------------------------
You say this is your goal "We are trying to fix our tech debt step by step
using the maxAllowedViolation flag and reducing the number slowly."
So what you are saying is: I never what this number to increase. That something
completey different than saying: I want the number of violations to be N.
This is a policy, not a hard number. Don't punish your developers by forcing
them to update the pom, development should be fun.
To me it is a bad sign if you potentially need to adjust your pom.xml with
every single commit. We could think of introducing such policy, but where
should that previous number come from? However, there are other tools which are
much better in doing this.
bq. I am pretty sure that mostly everyone who is using "maxAllowedViolation"
right now would rather have an "expectedViolation" flag instead...
I'm pretty sure almost everyone don't use this property because there are other
tools that can do much better.
> Introduce an expectedViolation flag
> -----------------------------------
>
> Key: MCHECKSTYLE-341
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MCHECKSTYLE-341
> Project: Maven Checkstyle Plugin
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: checkstyle:check
> Affects Versions: 2.17
> Reporter: Tibo
> Priority: Minor
>
> We are trying to fix our tech debt step by step using the maxAllowedViolation
> flag and reducing the number slowly.
> We have 400+ maven module in our project and developer never update this
> flag, So basically when someone is fixing checkstyle error without updating
> the flag, it leaves room for another developer to introduce new errors...
> I would like an expectedViolation flag just to force people who are fixing
> issues to also update the count... It could be called "expectedViolation".
> The difference with the maxAllowedViolation flag is that this one would also
> fail when the number of actual violation is less than the "expectedViolation"
> flag.
> I believe the maxAllowedViolation should have been an expectedViolation from
> the start. I don't believe anyone wants to leave room for violation, you just
> want, for an existing project, to explicitly specify the current number of
> violation and disallow through pull request the number to go up.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)
