CodeTools proposal: "friday stats"

Jonathan Gibbons jonathan.gibbons at
Wed Jul 3 04:43:46 PDT 2013

On 07/03/2013 04:27 AM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> On 07/03/2013 03:24 PM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
>> I scanned through some of this report. It is hard to know how we can
>> best make use of it. In addition, some of the "major issues" don't seem
>> so major to me -- like "superfluous parentheses".  And "security issues"
>> come up as just "info".
> Yes, because JDK is somewhat special when it comes to code style, issues
> to track, etc. This can be handled by fine tuning the warnings we are
> looking for.
>> I don't think one report for the JDK is the best way to go. If we could
>> configure a report for each of the major component areas, and configure
>> the messages that are generated, then we might start to get somewhere.
> I agree. But, that is harder to do when you don't own the Sonar
> instance. Hence, my original question floats up again: is there a merit
> to have public Sonar instance within OpenJDK, where we can fine-tune the
> reports?
> -Aleksey.

I think the answer is a qualified "yes". Right now, there is a lot of
activity to fix javac warnings and doclint warnings, so I'm not sure
there is bandwidth available for people to deal with Sonar issues
as well. But I think there is scope for people to investigate how
best to configure Sonar to generate useful reports that people may
be interested in.

-- Jon

More information about the code-tools-dev mailing list