Static Analysis Tooling

[Mike Drob <md...@apache.org>]

Devs,

I'd like to bring up static analysis for Solr and Lucene again. It's been
about a year since the last conversation[1] and it might be time to
revisit. There is a JIRA issue too[2], but it's also in need of some love.

ASF already provides a Sonar instance that we might be able to use[3],
alternatively we can just hook up whatever static analysis tool works well
with ant (this is most of them) and rely on Jenkins to provide reports. The
Eclipse FindBugs plug-in works pretty well for me personally.

I will plan on submitting first some patches to fix issues found as
"critical" in my local instance. Then I will work on adding analysis to the
build, and figuring out how to fail the build if we exceed a certain
threshold. And then we can incrementally lower the threshold while fixing
additional issues.

Does this sound like a reasonable plan? I want to give folks a heads up
before creating a bunch of issues - FindBugs currently reports just over
500 hits on trunk.

Mike

[1]: http://markmail.org/thread/pxf7lg7kzflnknmm
[2]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-5130
[3]: https://analysis.apache.org/

Re: Static Analysis Tooling

[Mike Drob <md...@apache.org>]

Ah, didn't see that one because it's even older than the other issue I
found. Looks like this has been waiting for a long time. I'll take further
discussion to the JIRA.

On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 11:52 AM, david.w.smiley@gmail.com <
david.w.smiley@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1 to this idea.  Note this is tracked as
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3973
>
> ~ David Smiley
> Freelance Apache Lucene/Solr Search Consultant/Developer
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
>
> On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Mike Drob <md...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Devs,
>>
>> I'd like to bring up static analysis for Solr and Lucene again. It's been
>> about a year since the last conversation[1] and it might be time to
>> revisit. There is a JIRA issue too[2], but it's also in need of some love.
>>
>> ASF already provides a Sonar instance that we might be able to use[3],
>> alternatively we can just hook up whatever static analysis tool works well
>> with ant (this is most of them) and rely on Jenkins to provide reports. The
>> Eclipse FindBugs plug-in works pretty well for me personally.
>>
>> I will plan on submitting first some patches to fix issues found as
>> "critical" in my local instance. Then I will work on adding analysis to the
>> build, and figuring out how to fail the build if we exceed a certain
>> threshold. And then we can incrementally lower the threshold while fixing
>> additional issues.
>>
>> Does this sound like a reasonable plan? I want to give folks a heads up
>> before creating a bunch of issues - FindBugs currently reports just over
>> 500 hits on trunk.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> [1]: http://markmail.org/thread/pxf7lg7kzflnknmm
>> [2]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-5130
>> [3]: https://analysis.apache.org/
>>
>
>

Re: Static Analysis Tooling

["david.w.smiley@gmail.com" <da...@gmail.com>]

+1 to this idea.  Note this is tracked as
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3973

~ David Smiley
Freelance Apache Lucene/Solr Search Consultant/Developer
http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley

On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Mike Drob <md...@apache.org> wrote:

> Devs,
>
> I'd like to bring up static analysis for Solr and Lucene again. It's been
> about a year since the last conversation[1] and it might be time to
> revisit. There is a JIRA issue too[2], but it's also in need of some love.
>
> ASF already provides a Sonar instance that we might be able to use[3],
> alternatively we can just hook up whatever static analysis tool works well
> with ant (this is most of them) and rely on Jenkins to provide reports. The
> Eclipse FindBugs plug-in works pretty well for me personally.
>
> I will plan on submitting first some patches to fix issues found as
> "critical" in my local instance. Then I will work on adding analysis to the
> build, and figuring out how to fail the build if we exceed a certain
> threshold. And then we can incrementally lower the threshold while fixing
> additional issues.
>
> Does this sound like a reasonable plan? I want to give folks a heads up
> before creating a bunch of issues - FindBugs currently reports just over
> 500 hits on trunk.
>
> Mike
>
> [1]: http://markmail.org/thread/pxf7lg7kzflnknmm
> [2]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-5130
> [3]: https://analysis.apache.org/
>