maven-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Benjamin Bentmann (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] Updated: (MCHECKSTYLE-98) Maven Checkstyle is too strict and not follow Maven's team conventions!
Date Sun, 03 Aug 2008 09:50:26 GMT


Benjamin Bentmann updated MCHECKSTYLE-98:

    Attachment: hidden-field.patch

I agree with Dennis, I don't feel that tolerating missing javadoc is a good choice. Undocumented
code is hard to maintain and provokes bugs due to wrong assumptions.

Another suggestion: Is the {{HiddenField}} check really useful? I like private helper methods
that don't access mojo parameters directly but rather get them in via method parameters (to
make data flow more clearly, shared memory programming is obscure). Coming up with distinct
names for the method parameter and the corresponding mojo parameter doesn't seem senseful
to me.

> Maven Checkstyle is too strict and not follow Maven's team conventions!
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: MCHECKSTYLE-98
>                 URL:
>             Project: Maven 2.x Checkstyle Plugin
>          Issue Type: Task
>    Affects Versions: 2.2
>            Reporter: Vincent Siveton
>         Attachments: hidden-field.patch, maven_style_improvements.diff,,
> The Checkstyle report is an official part of the Maven's project website. Release manager
needs to review it before cutting a release.
> Actually, the Maven Checkstyle conf is too strict and not following our conventions.
> Lets take the MPIR project (rev 675999)  and see attachment. There
is a lot of unuseful info/warn ie "Missing a Javadoc comment" or "Expected @param tag for..."
> I propose to modify the current Maven style (see maven_style_improvements.diff). You
could see results in

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
For more information on JIRA, see:


View raw message