You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to fop-dev@xmlgraphics.apache.org by Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com> on 2014/08/04 18:43:30 UTC
Summary of findbugs exclusions
I have performed a brief study of the current findbugs exclusions file. At
present there are 1094 exclusions covering 101 distinct exclusions types.
Of these types, half (~50) have 3 or fewer exclusions.
I plan to start cleaning up these exclusions by first fixing all types
having 10 or fewer exclusions. This will leave approximately 25 types of
exclusions to handle in a second fix pass.
Eventually, I will identify in the exclusions file all exclusion types that
should not be permitted to be added, i.e., that must be fixed. I expect
that some exclusion types will remain, such as:
- BC_UNCONFIRMED_CAST
- EI_EXPOSE_REP
- EI_EXPOSE_REP2
- PZLA_PREFER_ZERO_LENGTH_ARRAYS
- UWF_FIELD_NOT_INITIALIZED_IN_CONSTRUCTOR
Those that remain (and added in the future) should be subject to an
explicit design choice, and not merely to silence a warning.
Once I sort this out, I will ask for a vote on enabling findbugs in nightly
builds.
Re: Summary of findbugs exclusions
Posted by Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com>.
Thanks for input. It might be best to wait a bit to review this, as I'm
making good progress and where we end up will look a bit different. Also
I'm evaluating use of the newest version findbugs-3.0.0, just released.
I'll post a follow on message when things settle into place.
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Chris Bowditch <bo...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Yes it is sensible to add FindBugs into the default target, but it should
> be done after the committers vote to accept the new FindBugs configuration.
> At the moment Findbugs is not yet accepted by everyone due to the
> sub-optimal configuration.
>
> Glenn; thanks for doing the initial analysis of the exclusions. I'm happy
> with the approach you propose to improve the Findbugs configuration. it
> would be good if the other committers could review and give feedback also.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris
>
> On 04/08/2014 23:00, Glenn Adams wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Luis Bernardo <lmpmbernardo@gmail.com
>> <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I suggest also to make running findbugs part of the default ant
>> task so that we don't forget to do it!
>>
>>
>> Good suggestion.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 8/4/14, 5:43 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
>>
>>> I have performed a brief study of the current findbugs exclusions
>>> file. At present there are 1094 exclusions covering 101 distinct
>>> exclusions types. Of these types, half (~50) have 3 or fewer
>>> exclusions.
>>>
>>> I plan to start cleaning up these exclusions by first fixing all
>>> types having 10 or fewer exclusions. This will leave
>>> approximately 25 types of exclusions to handle in a second fix pass.
>>>
>>> Eventually, I will identify in the exclusions file all exclusion
>>> types that should not be permitted to be added, i.e., that must
>>> be fixed. I expect that some exclusion types will remain, such as:
>>>
>>> * BC_UNCONFIRMED_CAST
>>> * EI_EXPOSE_REP
>>> * EI_EXPOSE_REP2
>>> * PZLA_PREFER_ZERO_LENGTH_ARRAYS
>>> * UWF_FIELD_NOT_INITIALIZED_IN_CONSTRUCTOR
>>>
>>>
>>> Those that remain (and added in the future) should be subject to
>>> an explicit design choice, and not merely to silence a warning.
>>>
>>> Once I sort this out, I will ask for a vote on enabling findbugs
>>> in nightly builds.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: Summary of findbugs exclusions
Posted by Chris Bowditch <bo...@hotmail.com>.
Hi All,
Yes it is sensible to add FindBugs into the default target, but it
should be done after the committers vote to accept the new FindBugs
configuration. At the moment Findbugs is not yet accepted by everyone
due to the sub-optimal configuration.
Glenn; thanks for doing the initial analysis of the exclusions. I'm
happy with the approach you propose to improve the Findbugs
configuration. it would be good if the other committers could review and
give feedback also.
Thanks,
Chris
On 04/08/2014 23:00, Glenn Adams wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Luis Bernardo <lmpmbernardo@gmail.com
> <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
> I suggest also to make running findbugs part of the default ant
> task so that we don't forget to do it!
>
>
> Good suggestion.
>
>
>
> On 8/4/14, 5:43 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
>> I have performed a brief study of the current findbugs exclusions
>> file. At present there are 1094 exclusions covering 101 distinct
>> exclusions types. Of these types, half (~50) have 3 or fewer
>> exclusions.
>>
>> I plan to start cleaning up these exclusions by first fixing all
>> types having 10 or fewer exclusions. This will leave
>> approximately 25 types of exclusions to handle in a second fix pass.
>>
>> Eventually, I will identify in the exclusions file all exclusion
>> types that should not be permitted to be added, i.e., that must
>> be fixed. I expect that some exclusion types will remain, such as:
>>
>> * BC_UNCONFIRMED_CAST
>> * EI_EXPOSE_REP
>> * EI_EXPOSE_REP2
>> * PZLA_PREFER_ZERO_LENGTH_ARRAYS
>> * UWF_FIELD_NOT_INITIALIZED_IN_CONSTRUCTOR
>>
>> Those that remain (and added in the future) should be subject to
>> an explicit design choice, and not merely to silence a warning.
>>
>> Once I sort this out, I will ask for a vote on enabling findbugs
>> in nightly builds.
>
>
Re: Summary of findbugs exclusions
Posted by Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com>.
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Luis Bernardo <lm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> I suggest also to make running findbugs part of the default ant task so
> that we don't forget to do it!
>
Good suggestion.
>
>
> On 8/4/14, 5:43 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
>
> I have performed a brief study of the current findbugs exclusions file. At
> present there are 1094 exclusions covering 101 distinct exclusions types.
> Of these types, half (~50) have 3 or fewer exclusions.
>
> I plan to start cleaning up these exclusions by first fixing all types
> having 10 or fewer exclusions. This will leave approximately 25 types of
> exclusions to handle in a second fix pass.
>
> Eventually, I will identify in the exclusions file all exclusion types
> that should not be permitted to be added, i.e., that must be fixed. I
> expect that some exclusion types will remain, such as:
>
> - BC_UNCONFIRMED_CAST
> - EI_EXPOSE_REP
> - EI_EXPOSE_REP2
> - PZLA_PREFER_ZERO_LENGTH_ARRAYS
> - UWF_FIELD_NOT_INITIALIZED_IN_CONSTRUCTOR
>
> Those that remain (and added in the future) should be subject to an
> explicit design choice, and not merely to silence a warning.
>
> Once I sort this out, I will ask for a vote on enabling findbugs in
> nightly builds.
>
>
>
Re: Summary of findbugs exclusions
Posted by Luis Bernardo <lm...@gmail.com>.
I suggest also to make running findbugs part of the default ant task so
that we don't forget to do it!
On 8/4/14, 5:43 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
> I have performed a brief study of the current findbugs exclusions
> file. At present there are 1094 exclusions covering 101 distinct
> exclusions types. Of these types, half (~50) have 3 or fewer exclusions.
>
> I plan to start cleaning up these exclusions by first fixing all types
> having 10 or fewer exclusions. This will leave approximately 25 types
> of exclusions to handle in a second fix pass.
>
> Eventually, I will identify in the exclusions file all exclusion types
> that should not be permitted to be added, i.e., that must be fixed. I
> expect that some exclusion types will remain, such as:
>
> * BC_UNCONFIRMED_CAST
> * EI_EXPOSE_REP
> * EI_EXPOSE_REP2
> * PZLA_PREFER_ZERO_LENGTH_ARRAYS
> * UWF_FIELD_NOT_INITIALIZED_IN_CONSTRUCTOR
>
> Those that remain (and added in the future) should be subject to an
> explicit design choice, and not merely to silence a warning.
>
> Once I sort this out, I will ask for a vote on enabling findbugs in
> nightly builds.
Re: Summary of findbugs exclusions
Posted by Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com>.
With attachment
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com> wrote:
> I have performed a brief study of the current findbugs exclusions file. At
> present there are 1094 exclusions covering 101 distinct exclusions types.
> Of these types, half (~50) have 3 or fewer exclusions.
>
> I plan to start cleaning up these exclusions by first fixing all types
> having 10 or fewer exclusions. This will leave approximately 25 types of
> exclusions to handle in a second fix pass.
>
> Eventually, I will identify in the exclusions file all exclusion types
> that should not be permitted to be added, i.e., that must be fixed. I
> expect that some exclusion types will remain, such as:
>
> - BC_UNCONFIRMED_CAST
> - EI_EXPOSE_REP
> - EI_EXPOSE_REP2
> - PZLA_PREFER_ZERO_LENGTH_ARRAYS
> - UWF_FIELD_NOT_INITIALIZED_IN_CONSTRUCTOR
>
> Those that remain (and added in the future) should be subject to an
> explicit design choice, and not merely to silence a warning.
>
> Once I sort this out, I will ask for a vote on enabling findbugs in
> nightly builds.
>