[aerogear-dev] checkstyle on aerogear-parent

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
16 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[aerogear-dev] checkstyle on aerogear-parent

Matthias Wessendorf
Hello,

w/ the advent of the 0.2.0 parent, we have checkstyle enabled;

However, I am not that happy, as the default rules are IMO a bit odd (e.g. the unused imports is pretty nasty when developing)

We could:
a) get rid of it (perhaps not)
b) disable it on normal execution and only execute it on a release profile or like that

right now I am running w/ skip - but that's a bit nasty...

Thoughts?

_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [aerogear-dev] checkstyle on aerogear-parent

Sebastien Blanc



On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 8:32 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hello,

w/ the advent of the 0.2.0 parent, we have checkstyle enabled;

However, I am not that happy, as the default rules are IMO a bit odd (e.g. the unused imports is pretty nasty when developing)

We could:
a) get rid of it (perhaps not)
b) disable it on normal execution and only execute it on a release profile or like that
+1 

right now I am running w/ skip - but that's a bit nasty...

Thoughts?

_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev


_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [aerogear-dev] checkstyle on aerogear-parent

Bruno Oliveira
In reply to this post by Matthias Wessendorf
+1 on having an specific profile for checkstyle

On 2014-05-20, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:

> Hello,
>
> w/ the advent of the 0.2.0 parent, we have checkstyle enabled;
>
> However, I am not that happy, as the default rules are IMO a bit odd (e.g.
> the unused imports is pretty nasty when developing)
>
> We could:
> a) get rid of it (perhaps not)
> b) disable it on normal execution and only execute it on a release profile
> or like that
>
> right now I am running w/ skip - but that's a bit nasty...
>
> Thoughts?
> Matthias
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
>
> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf

> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev


--

abstractj
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [aerogear-dev] checkstyle on aerogear-parent

danielbevenius
-1 I'd prefer to have checkstyle enabled by default, and integrate the checkstyle into the IDE to avoid having to discover issue later when building with maven.


On 20 May 2014 20:56, Bruno Oliveira <[hidden email]> wrote:
+1 on having an specific profile for checkstyle

On 2014-05-20, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
> Hello,
>
> w/ the advent of the 0.2.0 parent, we have checkstyle enabled;
>
> However, I am not that happy, as the default rules are IMO a bit odd (e.g.
> the unused imports is pretty nasty when developing)
>
> We could:
> a) get rid of it (perhaps not)
> b) disable it on normal execution and only execute it on a release profile
> or like that
>
> right now I am running w/ skip - but that's a bit nasty...
>
> Thoughts?
> Matthias
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
>
> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf

> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev


--

abstractj
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev


_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
qmx
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [aerogear-dev] checkstyle on aerogear-parent

qmx
Administrator
In reply to this post by Matthias Wessendorf
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 08:32:40PM +0200, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
> Hello,
>
> w/ the advent of the 0.2.0 parent, we have checkstyle enabled;
>
> However, I am not that happy, as the default rules are IMO a bit odd (e.g.
> the unused imports is pretty nasty when developing)

You're picking with one of the very few checks I actually think are
useful :)

>
> We could:
> a) get rid of it (perhaps not)
> b) disable it on normal execution and only execute it on a release profile
> or like that
>
> right now I am running w/ skip - but that's a bit nasty...
>
> Thoughts?
> Matthias
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
>
> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf

> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev


--
qmx
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [aerogear-dev] checkstyle on aerogear-parent

Bruno Oliveira
In reply to this post by danielbevenius
The only reason to have checkstyle enabled by default is: if we agree on
which rules should be active or not and provide an specific IDE setup.

Other than that, people like me will skip it. Why? Simple, I'm trying to
solve critical problems and also strugging to figure out why checkstyle
is do care about method lenght.

So to me if you're guys really want to introduce it we need:

- Definition of which rules were supposed to be active
- IDE profiles for Eclipse/IntelliJ
- Make the error messages something clear

Otherwise, I'm -∞. It was never discussed here and if it exists on
aerogear-parent is all our fault.

On 2014-05-20, Daniel Bevenius wrote:

> -1 I'd prefer to have checkstyle enabled by default, and integrate the
> checkstyle into the IDE to avoid having to discover issue later when
> building with maven.
>
>
> On 20 May 2014 20:56, Bruno Oliveira <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > +1 on having an specific profile for checkstyle
> >
> > On 2014-05-20, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > w/ the advent of the 0.2.0 parent, we have checkstyle enabled;
> > >
> > > However, I am not that happy, as the default rules are IMO a bit odd
> > (e.g.
> > > the unused imports is pretty nasty when developing)
> > >
> > > We could:
> > > a) get rid of it (perhaps not)
> > > b) disable it on normal execution and only execute it on a release
> > profile
> > > or like that
> > >
> > > right now I am running w/ skip - but that's a bit nasty...
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > > Matthias
> > >
> > > --
> > > Matthias Wessendorf
> > >
> > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> > > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> > > twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
> >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > aerogear-dev mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > abstractj
> > _______________________________________________
> > aerogear-dev mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
> >

> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev


--

abstractj
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [aerogear-dev] checkstyle on aerogear-parent

Matthias Wessendorf


On Tuesday, May 20, 2014, Bruno Oliveira <[hidden email]> wrote:
The only reason to have checkstyle enabled by default is: if we agree on
which rules should be active or not and provide an specific IDE setup.

Exactly! (Includes headers, formarting etc)

 

Other than that, people like me will skip it. Why? Simple, I'm trying to
solve critical problems and also strugging to figure out why checkstyle
is do care about method lenght.

Same here :-)

 

So to me if you're guys really want to introduce it we need:

- Definition of which rules were supposed to be active
- IDE profiles for Eclipse/IntelliJ
- Make the error messages something clear

+1

 

Otherwise, I'm -∞. It was never discussed here and if it exists on
aerogear-parent is all our fault.

Yep, fully agree

 

On 2014-05-20, Daniel Bevenius wrote:
> -1 I'd prefer to have checkstyle enabled by default, and integrate the
> checkstyle into the IDE to avoid having to discover issue later when
> building with maven.
>
>
> On 20 May 2014 20:56, Bruno Oliveira <<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, &#39;cvml&#39;, &#39;bruno@abstractj.org&#39;)">bruno@...> wrote:
>
> > +1 on having an specific profile for checkstyle
> >
> > On 2014-05-20, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > w/ the advent of the 0.2.0 parent, we have checkstyle enabled;
> > >
> > > However, I am not that happy, as the default rules are IMO a bit odd
> > (e.g.
> > > the unused imports is pretty nasty when developing)
> > >
> > > We could:
> > > a) get rid of it (perhaps not)
> > > b) disable it on normal execution and only execute it on a release
> > profile
> > > or like that
> > >
> > > right now I am running w/ skip - but that's a bit nasty...
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > > Matthias
> > >
> > > --
> > > Matthias Wessendorf
> > >
> > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> > > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> > > twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
> >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > aerogear-dev mailing list
> > > <a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, &#39;cvml&#39;, &#39;aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org&#39;)">aerogear-dev@...
> > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > abstractj
> > _______________________________________________
> > aerogear-dev mailing list
> > <a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, &#39;cvml&#39;, &#39;aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org&#39;)">aerogear-dev@...
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
> >

> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> <a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, &#39;cvml&#39;, &#39;aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org&#39;)">aerogear-dev@...
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev


--

abstractj
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, &#39;cvml&#39;, &#39;aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org&#39;)">aerogear-dev@...
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev


--
Sent from Gmail Mobile

_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [aerogear-dev] checkstyle on aerogear-parent

Karel Piwko
In reply to this post by Bruno Oliveira
That's not true, it was discussed during team meeting at
the times we've been using G+ as well (I can't prove that) and on ML as well:

http://aerogear-dev.1069024.n5.nabble.com/aerogear-dev-JavaScript-formatter-td5200.html

It just took 7 month for the PR to be merged. The point of initial checkstyle
rules set was chosen because:

* It was identified as the least annoying setup on ML, there were a lot of +1s
* There was a bug in released library caused by using unused import that was not
  available on classpath. I might be able to dig it out but it would take me a
  lot of time as I don't recall what project it was.

+9001 for abstract's proposal on having same setup for IDE as well. There is
nothing more annoying then something working in IDE but not in Maven. -1 for the
specific profile, as it shifts responsibility to clean up the mess to the person
doing the release.

Karel

On Tue, 20 May 2014 16:20:52 -0300
Bruno Oliveira <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The only reason to have checkstyle enabled by default is: if we agree on
> which rules should be active or not and provide an specific IDE setup.
>
> Other than that, people like me will skip it. Why? Simple, I'm trying to
> solve critical problems and also strugging to figure out why checkstyle
> is do care about method lenght.
>
> So to me if you're guys really want to introduce it we need:
>
> - Definition of which rules were supposed to be active
> - IDE profiles for Eclipse/IntelliJ
> - Make the error messages something clear
>
> Otherwise, I'm -∞. It was never discussed here and if it exists on
> aerogear-parent is all our fault.
>
> On 2014-05-20, Daniel Bevenius wrote:
> > -1 I'd prefer to have checkstyle enabled by default, and integrate the
> > checkstyle into the IDE to avoid having to discover issue later when
> > building with maven.
> >
> >
> > On 20 May 2014 20:56, Bruno Oliveira <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > +1 on having an specific profile for checkstyle
> > >
> > > On 2014-05-20, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > w/ the advent of the 0.2.0 parent, we have checkstyle enabled;
> > > >
> > > > However, I am not that happy, as the default rules are IMO a bit odd
> > > (e.g.
> > > > the unused imports is pretty nasty when developing)
> > > >
> > > > We could:
> > > > a) get rid of it (perhaps not)
> > > > b) disable it on normal execution and only execute it on a release
> > > profile
> > > > or like that
> > > >
> > > > right now I am running w/ skip - but that's a bit nasty...
> > > >
> > > > Thoughts?
> > > > Matthias
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Matthias Wessendorf
> > > >
> > > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> > > > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> > > > twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
> > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > aerogear-dev mailing list
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > abstractj
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > aerogear-dev mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
> > >
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > aerogear-dev mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>
>
> --
>
> abstractj
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev

_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [aerogear-dev] checkstyle on aerogear-parent

Bruno Oliveira
I don't think you need to prove anything, to me is just the matter of
reach a consensus and think about what works for the whole team.

Is still possible skip checkstyle and leave the mess to the person doing the
release, even worse, the person doing the release can also skip this.

The only thing able to guarantee the quality of the code is the developer's
conscience. I don't think that enforcing checkstyle default rules will make us more
conscious tbh.

On 2014-05-21, Karel Piwko wrote:

> That's not true, it was discussed during team meeting at
> the times we've been using G+ as well (I can't prove that) and on ML as well:
>
> http://aerogear-dev.1069024.n5.nabble.com/aerogear-dev-JavaScript-formatter-td5200.html
>
> It just took 7 month for the PR to be merged. The point of initial checkstyle
> rules set was chosen because:
>
> * It was identified as the least annoying setup on ML, there were a lot of +1s
> * There was a bug in released library caused by using unused import that was not
>   available on classpath. I might be able to dig it out but it would take me a
>   lot of time as I don't recall what project it was.
>
> +9001 for abstract's proposal on having same setup for IDE as well. There is
> nothing more annoying then something working in IDE but not in Maven. -1 for the
> specific profile, as it shifts responsibility to clean up the mess to the person
> doing the release.
>
> Karel
>
> On Tue, 20 May 2014 16:20:52 -0300
> Bruno Oliveira <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > The only reason to have checkstyle enabled by default is: if we agree on
> > which rules should be active or not and provide an specific IDE setup.
> >
> > Other than that, people like me will skip it. Why? Simple, I'm trying to
> > solve critical problems and also strugging to figure out why checkstyle
> > is do care about method lenght.
> >
> > So to me if you're guys really want to introduce it we need:
> >
> > - Definition of which rules were supposed to be active
> > - IDE profiles for Eclipse/IntelliJ
> > - Make the error messages something clear
> >
> > Otherwise, I'm -∞. It was never discussed here and if it exists on
> > aerogear-parent is all our fault.
> >
> > On 2014-05-20, Daniel Bevenius wrote:
> > > -1 I'd prefer to have checkstyle enabled by default, and integrate the
> > > checkstyle into the IDE to avoid having to discover issue later when
> > > building with maven.
> > >
> > >
> > > On 20 May 2014 20:56, Bruno Oliveira <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1 on having an specific profile for checkstyle
> > > >
> > > > On 2014-05-20, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
> > > > > Hello,
> > > > >
> > > > > w/ the advent of the 0.2.0 parent, we have checkstyle enabled;
> > > > >
> > > > > However, I am not that happy, as the default rules are IMO a bit odd
> > > > (e.g.
> > > > > the unused imports is pretty nasty when developing)
> > > > >
> > > > > We could:
> > > > > a) get rid of it (perhaps not)
> > > > > b) disable it on normal execution and only execute it on a release
> > > > profile
> > > > > or like that
> > > > >
> > > > > right now I am running w/ skip - but that's a bit nasty...
> > > > >
> > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > > Matthias
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Matthias Wessendorf
> > > > >
> > > > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> > > > > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> > > > > twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
> > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > aerogear-dev mailing list
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > abstractj
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > aerogear-dev mailing list
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
> > > >
> >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > aerogear-dev mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > abstractj
> > _______________________________________________
> > aerogear-dev mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev

--

abstractj

JBoss, a division of Red Hat
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [aerogear-dev] checkstyle on aerogear-parent

Karel Piwko
This is the same issue as with unit tests. If they tend to take too
much time, people are skipping them.

What about activating checkstyle in CI and or Git push hook, for both PRs and
direct commits upstream. This way a developer can develop without constraints
*until* he wants to push the code upstream. Would it help?

Thanks,

Karel

On Wed, 21 May 2014 11:38:02 -0300
Bruno Oliveira <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I don't think you need to prove anything, to me is just the matter of
> reach a consensus and think about what works for the whole team.
>
> Is still possible skip checkstyle and leave the mess to the person doing the
> release, even worse, the person doing the release can also skip this.
>
> The only thing able to guarantee the quality of the code is the developer's
> conscience. I don't think that enforcing checkstyle default rules will make
> us more conscious tbh.
>
> On 2014-05-21, Karel Piwko wrote:
> > That's not true, it was discussed during team meeting at
> > the times we've been using G+ as well (I can't prove that) and on ML as
> > well:
> >
> > http://aerogear-dev.1069024.n5.nabble.com/aerogear-dev-JavaScript-formatter-td5200.html
> >
> > It just took 7 month for the PR to be merged. The point of initial
> > checkstyle rules set was chosen because:
> >
> > * It was identified as the least annoying setup on ML, there were a lot of
> > +1s
> > * There was a bug in released library caused by using unused import that
> > was not available on classpath. I might be able to dig it out but it would
> > take me a lot of time as I don't recall what project it was.
> >
> > +9001 for abstract's proposal on having same setup for IDE as well. There is
> > nothing more annoying then something working in IDE but not in Maven. -1
> > for the specific profile, as it shifts responsibility to clean up the mess
> > to the person doing the release.
> >
> > Karel
> >
> > On Tue, 20 May 2014 16:20:52 -0300
> > Bruno Oliveira <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > The only reason to have checkstyle enabled by default is: if we agree on
> > > which rules should be active or not and provide an specific IDE setup.
> > >
> > > Other than that, people like me will skip it. Why? Simple, I'm trying to
> > > solve critical problems and also strugging to figure out why checkstyle
> > > is do care about method lenght.
> > >
> > > So to me if you're guys really want to introduce it we need:
> > >
> > > - Definition of which rules were supposed to be active
> > > - IDE profiles for Eclipse/IntelliJ
> > > - Make the error messages something clear
> > >
> > > Otherwise, I'm -∞. It was never discussed here and if it exists on
> > > aerogear-parent is all our fault.
> > >
> > > On 2014-05-20, Daniel Bevenius wrote:
> > > > -1 I'd prefer to have checkstyle enabled by default, and integrate the
> > > > checkstyle into the IDE to avoid having to discover issue later when
> > > > building with maven.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 20 May 2014 20:56, Bruno Oliveira <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +1 on having an specific profile for checkstyle
> > > > >
> > > > > On 2014-05-20, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
> > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > w/ the advent of the 0.2.0 parent, we have checkstyle enabled;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > However, I am not that happy, as the default rules are IMO a bit odd
> > > > > (e.g.
> > > > > > the unused imports is pretty nasty when developing)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We could:
> > > > > > a) get rid of it (perhaps not)
> > > > > > b) disable it on normal execution and only execute it on a release
> > > > > profile
> > > > > > or like that
> > > > > >
> > > > > > right now I am running w/ skip - but that's a bit nasty...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > > > Matthias
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Matthias Wessendorf
> > > > > >
> > > > > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> > > > > > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> > > > > > twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
> > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > aerogear-dev mailing list
> > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > abstractj
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > aerogear-dev mailing list
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
> > > > >
> > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > aerogear-dev mailing list
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > abstractj
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > aerogear-dev mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > aerogear-dev mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>
> --
>
> abstractj
>
> JBoss, a division of Red Hat
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev

_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [aerogear-dev] checkstyle on aerogear-parent

Matthias Wessendorf


On Thursday, May 22, 2014, Karel Piwko <[hidden email]> wrote:
This is the same issue as with unit tests. If they tend to take too
much time, people are skipping them.

What about activating checkstyle in CI and or Git push hook, for both PRs and
direct commits upstream. This way a developer can develop without constraints
*until* he wants to push the code upstream. Would it help?

-1

I think we should work on proper templates for our IDEs instead

 

Thanks,

Karel

On Wed, 21 May 2014 11:38:02 -0300
Bruno Oliveira <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I don't think you need to prove anything, to me is just the matter of
> reach a consensus and think about what works for the whole team.
>
> Is still possible skip checkstyle and leave the mess to the person doing the
> release, even worse, the person doing the release can also skip this.
>
> The only thing able to guarantee the quality of the code is the developer's
> conscience. I don't think that enforcing checkstyle default rules will make
> us more conscious tbh.
>
> On 2014-05-21, Karel Piwko wrote:
> > That's not true, it was discussed during team meeting at
> > the times we've been using G+ as well (I can't prove that) and on ML as
> > well:
> >
> > http://aerogear-dev.1069024.n5.nabble.com/aerogear-dev-JavaScript-formatter-td5200.html
> >
> > It just took 7 month for the PR to be merged. The point of initial
> > checkstyle rules set was chosen because:
> >
> > * It was identified as the least annoying setup on ML, there were a lot of
> > +1s
> > * There was a bug in released library caused by using unused import that
> > was not available on classpath. I might be able to dig it out but it would
> > take me a lot of time as I don't recall what project it was.
> >
> > +9001 for abstract's proposal on having same setup for IDE as well. There is
> > nothing more annoying then something working in IDE but not in Maven. -1
> > for the specific profile, as it shifts responsibility to clean up the mess
> > to the person doing the release.
> >
> > Karel
> >
> > On Tue, 20 May 2014 16:20:52 -0300
> > Bruno Oliveira <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > The only reason to have checkstyle enabled by default is: if we agree on
> > > which rules should be active or not and provide an specific IDE setup.
> > >
> > > Other than that, people like me will skip it. Why? Simple, I'm trying to
> > > solve critical problems and also strugging to figure out why checkstyle
> > > is do care about method lenght.
> > >
> > > So to me if you're guys really want to introduce it we need:
> > >
> > > - Definition of which rules were supposed to be active
> > > - IDE profiles for Eclipse/IntelliJ
> > > - Make the error messages something clear
> > >
> > > Otherwise, I'm -∞. It was never discussed here and if it exists on
> > > aerogear-parent is all our fault.
> > >
> > > On 2014-05-20, Daniel Bevenius wrote:
> > > > -1 I'd prefer to have checkstyle enabled by default, and integrate the
> > > > checkstyle into the IDE to avoid having to discover issue later when
> > > > building with maven.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 20 May 2014 20:56, Bruno Oliveira <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +1 on having an specific profile for checkstyle
> > > > >
> > > > > On 2014-05-20, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
> > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > w/ the advent of the 0.2.0 parent, we have checkstyle enabled;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > However, I am not that happy, as the default rules are IMO a bit odd
> > > > > (e.g.
> > > > > > the unused imports is pretty nasty when developing)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We could:
> > > > > > a) get rid of it (perhaps not)
> > > > > > b) disable it on normal execution and only execute it on a release
> > > > > profile
> > > > > > or like that
> > > > > >
> > > > > > right now I am running w/ skip - but that's a bit nasty...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > > > Matthias
> > > > > >
> > >


--
Sent from Gmail Mobile

_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [aerogear-dev] checkstyle on aerogear-parent

Bruno Oliveira
In reply to this post by Karel Piwko
Hi Karel, with the appropriate templates in place, that would make
sense.

I vote for adding it on CI.

On 2014-05-22, Karel Piwko wrote:

> This is the same issue as with unit tests. If they tend to take too
> much time, people are skipping them.
>
> What about activating checkstyle in CI and or Git push hook, for both PRs and
> direct commits upstream. This way a developer can develop without constraints
> *until* he wants to push the code upstream. Would it help?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Karel
>
> On Wed, 21 May 2014 11:38:02 -0300
> Bruno Oliveira <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > I don't think you need to prove anything, to me is just the matter of
> > reach a consensus and think about what works for the whole team.
> >
> > Is still possible skip checkstyle and leave the mess to the person doing the
> > release, even worse, the person doing the release can also skip this.
> >
> > The only thing able to guarantee the quality of the code is the developer's
> > conscience. I don't think that enforcing checkstyle default rules will make
> > us more conscious tbh.
> >
> > On 2014-05-21, Karel Piwko wrote:
> > > That's not true, it was discussed during team meeting at
> > > the times we've been using G+ as well (I can't prove that) and on ML as
> > > well:
> > >
> > > http://aerogear-dev.1069024.n5.nabble.com/aerogear-dev-JavaScript-formatter-td5200.html
> > >
> > > It just took 7 month for the PR to be merged. The point of initial
> > > checkstyle rules set was chosen because:
> > >
> > > * It was identified as the least annoying setup on ML, there were a lot of
> > > +1s
> > > * There was a bug in released library caused by using unused import that
> > > was not available on classpath. I might be able to dig it out but it would
> > > take me a lot of time as I don't recall what project it was.
> > >
> > > +9001 for abstract's proposal on having same setup for IDE as well. There is
> > > nothing more annoying then something working in IDE but not in Maven. -1
> > > for the specific profile, as it shifts responsibility to clean up the mess
> > > to the person doing the release.
> > >
> > > Karel
> > >
> > > On Tue, 20 May 2014 16:20:52 -0300
> > > Bruno Oliveira <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > The only reason to have checkstyle enabled by default is: if we agree on
> > > > which rules should be active or not and provide an specific IDE setup.
> > > >
> > > > Other than that, people like me will skip it. Why? Simple, I'm trying to
> > > > solve critical problems and also strugging to figure out why checkstyle
> > > > is do care about method lenght.
> > > >
> > > > So to me if you're guys really want to introduce it we need:
> > > >
> > > > - Definition of which rules were supposed to be active
> > > > - IDE profiles for Eclipse/IntelliJ
> > > > - Make the error messages something clear
> > > >
> > > > Otherwise, I'm -∞. It was never discussed here and if it exists on
> > > > aerogear-parent is all our fault.
> > > >
> > > > On 2014-05-20, Daniel Bevenius wrote:
> > > > > -1 I'd prefer to have checkstyle enabled by default, and integrate the
> > > > > checkstyle into the IDE to avoid having to discover issue later when
> > > > > building with maven.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 20 May 2014 20:56, Bruno Oliveira <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > +1 on having an specific profile for checkstyle
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 2014-05-20, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
> > > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > w/ the advent of the 0.2.0 parent, we have checkstyle enabled;
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > However, I am not that happy, as the default rules are IMO a bit odd
> > > > > > (e.g.
> > > > > > > the unused imports is pretty nasty when developing)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We could:
> > > > > > > a) get rid of it (perhaps not)
> > > > > > > b) disable it on normal execution and only execute it on a release
> > > > > > profile
> > > > > > > or like that
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > right now I am running w/ skip - but that's a bit nasty...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > > > > Matthias
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Matthias Wessendorf
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> > > > > > > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> > > > > > > twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > aerogear-dev mailing list
> > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > >
> > > > > > abstractj
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > aerogear-dev mailing list
> > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > aerogear-dev mailing list
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > abstractj
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > aerogear-dev mailing list
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > aerogear-dev mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
> >
> > --
> >
> > abstractj
> >
> > JBoss, a division of Red Hat
> > _______________________________________________
> > aerogear-dev mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev

--

abstractj
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [aerogear-dev] checkstyle on aerogear-parent

Summers Pittman
On Thu 22 May 2014 08:34:03 AM EDT, Bruno Oliveira wrote:
> Hi Karel, with the appropriate templates in place, that would make
> sense.
>
> I vote for adding it on CI.
+1

In general I like the idea of checkstyle and friends, but it really
slows down the code test commit flow when something trips me up.

It should probably be a profile thing like you said before.

>
> On 2014-05-22, Karel Piwko wrote:
>> This is the same issue as with unit tests. If they tend to take too
>> much time, people are skipping them.
>>
>> What about activating checkstyle in CI and or Git push hook, for both PRs and
>> direct commits upstream. This way a developer can develop without constraints
>> *until* he wants to push the code upstream. Would it help?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Karel
>>
>> On Wed, 21 May 2014 11:38:02 -0300
>> Bruno Oliveira <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't think you need to prove anything, to me is just the matter of
>>> reach a consensus and think about what works for the whole team.
>>>
>>> Is still possible skip checkstyle and leave the mess to the person doing the
>>> release, even worse, the person doing the release can also skip this.
>>>
>>> The only thing able to guarantee the quality of the code is the developer's
>>> conscience. I don't think that enforcing checkstyle default rules will make
>>> us more conscious tbh.
>>>
>>> On 2014-05-21, Karel Piwko wrote:
>>>> That's not true, it was discussed during team meeting at
>>>> the times we've been using G+ as well (I can't prove that) and on ML as
>>>> well:
>>>>
>>>> http://aerogear-dev.1069024.n5.nabble.com/aerogear-dev-JavaScript-formatter-td5200.html
>>>>
>>>> It just took 7 month for the PR to be merged. The point of initial
>>>> checkstyle rules set was chosen because:
>>>>
>>>> * It was identified as the least annoying setup on ML, there were a lot of
>>>> +1s
>>>> * There was a bug in released library caused by using unused import that
>>>> was not available on classpath. I might be able to dig it out but it would
>>>> take me a lot of time as I don't recall what project it was.
>>>>
>>>> +9001 for abstract's proposal on having same setup for IDE as well. There is
>>>> nothing more annoying then something working in IDE but not in Maven. -1
>>>> for the specific profile, as it shifts responsibility to clean up the mess
>>>> to the person doing the release.
>>>>
>>>> Karel
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 20 May 2014 16:20:52 -0300
>>>> Bruno Oliveira <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The only reason to have checkstyle enabled by default is: if we agree on
>>>>> which rules should be active or not and provide an specific IDE setup.
>>>>>
>>>>> Other than that, people like me will skip it. Why? Simple, I'm trying to
>>>>> solve critical problems and also strugging to figure out why checkstyle
>>>>> is do care about method lenght.
>>>>>
>>>>> So to me if you're guys really want to introduce it we need:
>>>>>
>>>>> - Definition of which rules were supposed to be active
>>>>> - IDE profiles for Eclipse/IntelliJ
>>>>> - Make the error messages something clear
>>>>>
>>>>> Otherwise, I'm -∞. It was never discussed here and if it exists on
>>>>> aerogear-parent is all our fault.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2014-05-20, Daniel Bevenius wrote:
>>>>>> -1 I'd prefer to have checkstyle enabled by default, and integrate the
>>>>>> checkstyle into the IDE to avoid having to discover issue later when
>>>>>> building with maven.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 20 May 2014 20:56, Bruno Oliveira <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1 on having an specific profile for checkstyle
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2014-05-20, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> w/ the advent of the 0.2.0 parent, we have checkstyle enabled;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> However, I am not that happy, as the default rules are IMO a bit odd
>>>>>>> (e.g.
>>>>>>>> the unused imports is pretty nasty when developing)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We could:
>>>>>>>> a) get rid of it (perhaps not)
>>>>>>>> b) disable it on normal execution and only execute it on a release
>>>>>>> profile
>>>>>>>> or like that
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> right now I am running w/ skip - but that's a bit nasty...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>>>> Matthias
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Matthias Wessendorf
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>>>>>>>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>>>>>>>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> abstractj
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> abstractj
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> abstractj
>>>
>>> JBoss, a division of Red Hat
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>
> --
>
> abstractj
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev



--
Summers Pittman
>>Phone:404 941 4698
>>Java is my crack.

_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [aerogear-dev] checkstyle on aerogear-parent

Boleslaw Dawidowicz
In reply to this post by Matthias Wessendorf
On 05/22/2014 01:50 PM, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:

>
>
> On Thursday, May 22, 2014, Karel Piwko <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     This is the same issue as with unit tests. If they tend to take too
>     much time, people are skipping them.
>
>     What about activating checkstyle in CI and or Git push hook, for
>     both PRs and
>     direct commits upstream. This way a developer can develop without
>     constraints
>     *until* he wants to push the code upstream. Would it help?
>
>
> -1
>
> I think we should work on proper templates for our IDEs instead


Major issue with IDE templates is that you cannot get both IDEA and
Eclipse to reformat code in whole project into exactly same outcome.
Unless you force people to use Eclipse formatter plugin in IDEA.

Also... checkstyle maven plugin is buggy... :)

>
>
>     Thanks,
>
>     Karel
>
>     On Wed, 21 May 2014 11:38:02 -0300
>     Bruno Oliveira <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>      > I don't think you need to prove anything, to me is just the matter of
>      > reach a consensus and think about what works for the whole team.
>      >
>      > Is still possible skip checkstyle and leave the mess to the
>     person doing the
>      > release, even worse, the person doing the release can also skip this.
>      >
>      > The only thing able to guarantee the quality of the code is the
>     developer's
>      > conscience. I don't think that enforcing checkstyle default rules
>     will make
>      > us more conscious tbh.
>      >
>      > On 2014-05-21, Karel Piwko wrote:
>      > > That's not true, it was discussed during team meeting at
>      > > the times we've been using G+ as well (I can't prove that) and
>     on ML as
>      > > well:
>      > >
>      > >
>     http://aerogear-dev.1069024.n5.nabble.com/aerogear-dev-JavaScript-formatter-td5200.html
>      > >
>      > > It just took 7 month for the PR to be merged. The point of initial
>      > > checkstyle rules set was chosen because:
>      > >
>      > > * It was identified as the least annoying setup on ML, there
>     were a lot of
>      > > +1s
>      > > * There was a bug in released library caused by using unused
>     import that
>      > > was not available on classpath. I might be able to dig it out
>     but it would
>      > > take me a lot of time as I don't recall what project it was.
>      > >
>      > > +9001 for abstract's proposal on having same setup for IDE as
>     well. There is
>      > > nothing more annoying then something working in IDE but not in
>     Maven. -1
>      > > for the specific profile, as it shifts responsibility to clean
>     up the mess
>      > > to the person doing the release.
>      > >
>      > > Karel
>      > >
>      > > On Tue, 20 May 2014 16:20:52 -0300
>      > > Bruno Oliveira <[hidden email]> wrote:
>      > >
>      > > > The only reason to have checkstyle enabled by default is: if
>     we agree on
>      > > > which rules should be active or not and provide an specific
>     IDE setup.
>      > > >
>      > > > Other than that, people like me will skip it. Why? Simple,
>     I'm trying to
>      > > > solve critical problems and also strugging to figure out why
>     checkstyle
>      > > > is do care about method lenght.
>      > > >
>      > > > So to me if you're guys really want to introduce it we need:
>      > > >
>      > > > - Definition of which rules were supposed to be active
>      > > > - IDE profiles for Eclipse/IntelliJ
>      > > > - Make the error messages something clear
>      > > >
>      > > > Otherwise, I'm -∞. It was never discussed here and if it
>     exists on
>      > > > aerogear-parent is all our fault.
>      > > >
>      > > > On 2014-05-20, Daniel Bevenius wrote:
>      > > > > -1 I'd prefer to have checkstyle enabled by default, and
>     integrate the
>      > > > > checkstyle into the IDE to avoid having to discover issue
>     later when
>      > > > > building with maven.
>      > > > >
>      > > > >
>      > > > > On 20 May 2014 20:56, Bruno Oliveira <[hidden email]>
>     wrote:
>      > > > >
>      > > > > > +1 on having an specific profile for checkstyle
>      > > > > >
>      > > > > > On 2014-05-20, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
>      > > > > > > Hello,
>      > > > > > >
>      > > > > > > w/ the advent of the 0.2.0 parent, we have checkstyle
>     enabled;
>      > > > > > >
>      > > > > > > However, I am not that happy, as the default rules are
>     IMO a bit odd
>      > > > > > (e.g.
>      > > > > > > the unused imports is pretty nasty when developing)
>      > > > > > >
>      > > > > > > We could:
>      > > > > > > a) get rid of it (perhaps not)
>      > > > > > > b) disable it on normal execution and only execute it
>     on a release
>      > > > > > profile
>      > > > > > > or like that
>      > > > > > >
>      > > > > > > right now I am running w/ skip - but that's a bit nasty...
>      > > > > > >
>      > > > > > > Thoughts?
>      > > > > > > Matthias
>      > > > > > >
>      > > >
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from Gmail Mobile
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>



--
Bolesław Dawidowicz
JBoss Portal Platform Architect | GateIn Portal Project Lead
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [aerogear-dev] checkstyle on aerogear-parent

Matthias Wessendorf



On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Bolesław Dawidowicz <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 05/22/2014 01:50 PM, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday, May 22, 2014, Karel Piwko <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     This is the same issue as with unit tests. If they tend to take too
>     much time, people are skipping them.
>
>     What about activating checkstyle in CI and or Git push hook, for
>     both PRs and
>     direct commits upstream. This way a developer can develop without
>     constraints
>     *until* he wants to push the code upstream. Would it help?
>
>
> -1
>
> I think we should work on proper templates for our IDEs instead


Major issue with IDE templates is that you cannot get both IDEA and
Eclipse to reformat code in whole project into exactly same outcome.
Unless you force people to use Eclipse formatter plugin in IDEA.

Also... checkstyle maven plugin is buggy... :)

sounds like you love checkstyle too :) 
 

>
>
>     Thanks,
>
>     Karel
>
>     On Wed, 21 May 2014 11:38:02 -0300
>     Bruno Oliveira <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>      > I don't think you need to prove anything, to me is just the matter of
>      > reach a consensus and think about what works for the whole team.
>      >
>      > Is still possible skip checkstyle and leave the mess to the
>     person doing the
>      > release, even worse, the person doing the release can also skip this.
>      >
>      > The only thing able to guarantee the quality of the code is the
>     developer's
>      > conscience. I don't think that enforcing checkstyle default rules
>     will make
>      > us more conscious tbh.
>      >
>      > On 2014-05-21, Karel Piwko wrote:
>      > > That's not true, it was discussed during team meeting at
>      > > the times we've been using G+ as well (I can't prove that) and
>     on ML as
>      > > well:
>      > >
>      > >
>     http://aerogear-dev.1069024.n5.nabble.com/aerogear-dev-JavaScript-formatter-td5200.html
>      > >
>      > > It just took 7 month for the PR to be merged. The point of initial
>      > > checkstyle rules set was chosen because:
>      > >
>      > > * It was identified as the least annoying setup on ML, there
>     were a lot of
>      > > +1s
>      > > * There was a bug in released library caused by using unused
>     import that
>      > > was not available on classpath. I might be able to dig it out
>     but it would
>      > > take me a lot of time as I don't recall what project it was.
>      > >
>      > > +9001 for abstract's proposal on having same setup for IDE as
>     well. There is
>      > > nothing more annoying then something working in IDE but not in
>     Maven. -1
>      > > for the specific profile, as it shifts responsibility to clean
>     up the mess
>      > > to the person doing the release.
>      > >
>      > > Karel
>      > >
>      > > On Tue, 20 May 2014 16:20:52 -0300
>      > > Bruno Oliveira <[hidden email]> wrote:
>      > >
>      > > > The only reason to have checkstyle enabled by default is: if
>     we agree on
>      > > > which rules should be active or not and provide an specific
>     IDE setup.
>      > > >
>      > > > Other than that, people like me will skip it. Why? Simple,
>     I'm trying to
>      > > > solve critical problems and also strugging to figure out why
>     checkstyle
>      > > > is do care about method lenght.
>      > > >
>      > > > So to me if you're guys really want to introduce it we need:
>      > > >
>      > > > - Definition of which rules were supposed to be active
>      > > > - IDE profiles for Eclipse/IntelliJ
>      > > > - Make the error messages something clear
>      > > >
>      > > > Otherwise, I'm -∞. It was never discussed here and if it
>     exists on
>      > > > aerogear-parent is all our fault.
>      > > >
>      > > > On 2014-05-20, Daniel Bevenius wrote:
>      > > > > -1 I'd prefer to have checkstyle enabled by default, and
>     integrate the
>      > > > > checkstyle into the IDE to avoid having to discover issue
>     later when
>      > > > > building with maven.
>      > > > >
>      > > > >
>      > > > > On 20 May 2014 20:56, Bruno Oliveira <[hidden email]>
>     wrote:
>      > > > >
>      > > > > > +1 on having an specific profile for checkstyle
>      > > > > >
>      > > > > > On 2014-05-20, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
>      > > > > > > Hello,
>      > > > > > >
>      > > > > > > w/ the advent of the 0.2.0 parent, we have checkstyle
>     enabled;
>      > > > > > >
>      > > > > > > However, I am not that happy, as the default rules are
>     IMO a bit odd
>      > > > > > (e.g.
>      > > > > > > the unused imports is pretty nasty when developing)
>      > > > > > >
>      > > > > > > We could:
>      > > > > > > a) get rid of it (perhaps not)
>      > > > > > > b) disable it on normal execution and only execute it
>     on a release
>      > > > > > profile
>      > > > > > > or like that
>      > > > > > >
>      > > > > > > right now I am running w/ skip - but that's a bit nasty...
>      > > > > > >
>      > > > > > > Thoughts?
>      > > > > > > Matthias
>      > > > > > >
>      > > >
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from Gmail Mobile
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>



--
Bolesław Dawidowicz
JBoss Portal Platform Architect | GateIn Portal Project Lead
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev



--
Matthias Wessendorf

blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf

_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [aerogear-dev] checkstyle on aerogear-parent

Boleslaw Dawidowicz
On 05/23/2014 11:24 AM, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:

>      > -1
>      >
>      > I think we should work on proper templates for our IDEs instead
>
>
>     Major issue with IDE templates is that you cannot get both IDEA and
>     Eclipse to reformat code in whole project into exactly same outcome.
>     Unless you force people to use Eclipse formatter plugin in IDEA.
>
>     Also... checkstyle maven plugin is buggy... :)
>
>
> sounds like you love checkstyle too :)

Who doesn't ;)

--
Bolesław Dawidowicz
JBoss Portal Platform Architect | GateIn Portal Project Lead
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev