CodeTools proposal: "friday stats"

Aleksey Shipilev aleksey.shipilev at
Wed Jul 3 04:47:12 PDT 2013

On 07/03/2013 03:43 PM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
> 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?
> 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.

Sounds good. I'll work with Evgeny in background to get the rulesets


P.S. Now stop responding to the mail, and go enjoy the semi-vacation!

More information about the code-tools-dev mailing list