maven-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Robert Scholte (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (MCHECKSTYLE-341) Introduce an expectedViolation flag
Date Fri, 29 Sep 2017 07:53:00 GMT


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:
>             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

View raw message