[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: [tor-bugs] #18955 [Metrics/CollecTor]: javadoc coverage checkstyle warnings

#18955: javadoc coverage checkstyle warnings
-------------------------------+------------------------------
 Reporter:  iwakeh             |          Owner:  iwakeh
     Type:  task               |         Status:  needs_review
 Priority:  Medium             |      Milestone:
Component:  Metrics/CollecTor  |        Version:
 Severity:  Normal             |     Resolution:
 Keywords:  ctip               |  Actual Points:
Parent ID:                     |         Points:
 Reviewer:                     |        Sponsor:
-------------------------------+------------------------------

Comment (by iwakeh):

 Replying to [comment:7 karsten]:
 > Suppressing warnings can be good (for example, for attribute names
 containing `_` which we cannot change), but I'd rather want to write the
 missing Javadocs than put in something to suppress the warning.  Depends
 on the number of warnings, of course. :)

 Agreed.
 In order to handle huge amounts of warnings we arrived at the idea to have
 two checkstyle tasks (comments 3 and 4).  Thinking more about it the
 suppress warnings seams to be the better solution.
 The addition of a new annotation will be clearly noticeable when doing a
 review and could be rejected. It is always visible in the code as a
 permanent reminder, but will not be cluttering the checkstyle report
 anymore.  So, the question is whether there still should be two checkstyle
 tasks?

--
Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/18955#comment:8>
Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki <https://trac.torproject.org/>
The Tor Project: anonymity online
_______________________________________________
tor-bugs mailing list
tor-bugs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-bugs