[jira] [Commented] (HADOOP-11869) checkstyle rules/script need re-visiting

["Zhijie Shen (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>]

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-11869?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14508555#comment-14508555 ] 

Zhijie Shen commented on HADOOP-11869:
--------------------------------------

I defined a public method, which results in two warnings, which don't make much sense:
{code}
<error line="645" column="3" severity="error" message="Method &apos;getUgi&apos; is not designed for extension - needs to be abstract, final or empty." source="com.puppycrawl.tools.checkstyle.checks.design.DesignForExtensionCheck"/>
<error line="645" column="3" severity="error" message="Missing a Javadoc comment." source="com.puppycrawl.tools.checkstyle.checks.javadoc.JavadocMethodCheck"/>
{code}

Moreover, {{checkstyle-result-diff.txt}} is not helpful, it doesn't list the detail of the additional checkstyle errors. On the other side, {{checkstyle-result-patch.xml}} and {{checkstyle-result-trunk.xml}} are to big to read efficiently.

> checkstyle rules/script need re-visiting
> ----------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: HADOOP-11869
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-11869
>             Project: Hadoop Common
>          Issue Type: Bug
>            Reporter: Sidharta Seethana
>
> There seem to be a lot of arcane errors being caused by the checkstyle rules/script. Real issues tend to be buried in this noise. Some examples :
> 1. "Line is longer than 80 characters" - this shows up even for cases like import statements, package names
> 2. "Missing a Javadoc comment." - for every private member including cases like "Configuration conf". 
> Having rules like these will result in a large number of pre-commit job failures. We should fine tune the rules used for checkstyle. 
>  



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)