Daniel Kulp wrote:
> Question 1:
> Would people be willing to accept patches that just fix warnings that show
> up in eclipse?
>
> Right now, using the same settings I use for Celtix, there are 622
> warnings in the spec, sdo, and sca projects. I hate seeing warnings,
> so I have two options:
>
> 1) Turn off most of the eclipse warnings (with I think sucks)
> 2) Fix the code and submit patches
>
> In general, I don't like submitting "warnings" fixes along with patches
> that provide real code changes. The real code changes tend to get lost.
> However, I just want to check to see if people are interested in warnings
> patches before I spend time on it. (FYI: Celtix is completely
> warnings free, which include a bunch of checkstyle and pmd rules which
> I'm not applying to tuscany. I have NO idea how bad tuscany would be if
> those types of checks were enabled. One step at a time.....)
>
In general I think this kind of improvement is good but it may depend on
the severity warning and the fix. I get a lot in IDEA as well and every
so often get the urge and go in and fix some. I have been marking the
commit as "cosmetic" if it is not meant to change anything except to fix
formatting or codestyle warnings.
I agree that we should not mix "cosmetic" stuff with real code changes -
that just makes things more complex and by its nature "cosmetic" stuff
should not be urgent.
Please submit patches for this.
>
> Question 2:
> In the sdo-api package, there are some annotations for SuppressWarnings
> like:
> @SuppressWarnings({"ClassLoader2Instantiation"})
> and
> @SuppressWarnings({"AccessOfSystemProperties"})
> Those warning values aren't "standard" ones that javac recognizes nor does
> the eclipse compiler. I'm just curious as to what compiler/tool they
> are targeted at. (just a curiosity question, nothing more)
>
They are added by IDEA when it detects checkstyle type issues. If it is
causing a problem we can just remove them.
Out of curiosity, does Eclipse have an equivalent?
--
Jeremy
