Hello, w/ the advent of the 0.2.0 parent, we have checkstyle enabled; However, I am not that happy, as the default rules are IMO a bit odd (e.g. the unused imports is pretty nasty when developing) We could: a) get rid of it (perhaps not) b) disable it on normal execution and only execute it on a release profile or like that

right now I am running w/ skip - but that's a bit nasty... Thoughts? Matthias -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf _______________________________________________ aerogear-dev mailing list aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev

+1 on having an specific profile for checkstyle On 2014-05-20, Matthias Wessendorf wrote: > Hello, > > w/ the advent of the 0.2.0 parent, we have checkstyle enabled; > > However, I am not that happy, as the default rules are IMO a bit odd (e.g. > the unused imports is pretty nasty when developing) > > We could: > a) get rid of it (perhaps not) > b) disable it on normal execution and only execute it on a release profile > or like that > > right now I am running w/ skip - but that's a bit nasty... > > Thoughts? > Matthias > > -- > Matthias Wessendorf > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf > twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf > _______________________________________________ > aerogear-dev mailing list > aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev -- abstractj _______________________________________________ aerogear-dev mailing list aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev

-1 I'd prefer to have checkstyle enabled by default, and integrate the checkstyle into the IDE to avoid having to discover issue later when building with maven. On 20 May 2014 20:56, Bruno Oliveira <bruno(a)abstractj.org&gt; wrote: > +1 on having an specific profile for checkstyle > > On 2014-05-20, Matthias Wessendorf wrote: > > Hello, > > > > w/ the advent of the 0.2.0 parent, we have checkstyle enabled; > > > > However, I am not that happy, as the default rules are IMO a bit odd > (e.g. > > the unused imports is pretty nasty when developing) > > > > We could: > > a) get rid of it (perhaps not) > > b) disable it on normal execution and only execute it on a release > profile > > or like that > > > > right now I am running w/ skip - but that's a bit nasty... > > > > Thoughts? > > Matthias > > > > -- > > Matthias Wessendorf > > > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ > > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf > > twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf > > > _______________________________________________ > > aerogear-dev mailing list > > aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev > > > -- > > abstractj > _______________________________________________ > aerogear-dev mailing list > aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev >

_______________________________________________ aerogear-dev mailing list aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev

The only reason to have checkstyle enabled by default is: if we agree on which rules should be active or not and provide an specific IDE setup. Other than that, people like me will skip it. Why? Simple, I'm trying to solve critical problems and also strugging to figure out why checkstyle is do care about method lenght. So to me if you're guys really want to introduce it we need: - Definition of which rules were supposed to be active - IDE profiles for Eclipse/IntelliJ - Make the error messages something clear Otherwise, I'm -∞. It was never discussed here and if it exists on aerogear-parent is all our fault. On 2014-05-20, Daniel Bevenius wrote: > -1 I'd prefer to have checkstyle enabled by default, and integrate the > checkstyle into the IDE to avoid having to discover issue later when > building with maven. > > > On 20 May 2014 20:56, Bruno Oliveira <bruno(a)abstractj.org&gt; wrote: > > > +1 on having an specific profile for checkstyle > > > > On 2014-05-20, Matthias Wessendorf wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > w/ the advent of the 0.2.0 parent, we have checkstyle enabled; > > > > > > However, I am not that happy, as the default rules are IMO a bit odd > > (e.g. > > > the unused imports is pretty nasty when developing) > > > > > > We could: > > > a) get rid of it (perhaps not) > > > b) disable it on normal execution and only execute it on a release > > profile > > > or like that > > > > > > right now I am running w/ skip - but that's a bit nasty... > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > Matthias > > > > > > -- > > > Matthias Wessendorf > > > > > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ > > > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf > > > twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > aerogear-dev mailing list > > > aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev > > > > > > -- > > > > abstractj > > _______________________________________________ > > aerogear-dev mailing list > > aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > aerogear-dev mailing list > aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev -- abstractj _______________________________________________ aerogear-dev mailing list aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev

I don't think you need to prove anything, to me is just the matter of reach a consensus and think about what works for the whole team. Is still possible skip checkstyle and leave the mess to the person doing the release, even worse, the person doing the release can also skip this. The only thing able to guarantee the quality of the code is the developer's conscience. I don't think that enforcing checkstyle default rules will make us more conscious tbh. On 2014-05-21, Karel Piwko wrote: > That's not true, it was discussed during team meeting at > the times we've been using G+ as well (I can't prove that) and on ML as > well: > > http://aerogear-dev.1069024.n5.nabble.com/aerogear-dev-JavaScript-formatt... > > It just took 7 month for the PR to be merged. The point of initial > checkstyle rules set was chosen because: > > * It was identified as the least annoying setup on ML, there were a lot of > +1s > * There was a bug in released library caused by using unused import that > was not available on classpath. I might be able to dig it out but it would > take me a lot of time as I don't recall what project it was. > > +9001 for abstract's proposal on having same setup for IDE as well. There is > nothing more annoying then something working in IDE but not in Maven. -1 > for the specific profile, as it shifts responsibility to clean up the mess > to the person doing the release. > > Karel > > On Tue, 20 May 2014 16:20:52 -0300 > Bruno Oliveira <bruno(a)abstractj.org&gt; wrote: > > > The only reason to have checkstyle enabled by default is: if we agree on > > which rules should be active or not and provide an specific IDE setup. > > > > Other than that, people like me will skip it. Why? Simple, I'm trying to > > solve critical problems and also strugging to figure out why checkstyle > > is do care about method lenght. > > > > So to me if you're guys really want to introduce it we need: > > > > - Definition of which rules were supposed to be active > > - IDE profiles for Eclipse/IntelliJ > > - Make the error messages something clear > > > > Otherwise, I'm -∞. It was never discussed here and if it exists on > > aerogear-parent is all our fault. > > > > On 2014-05-20, Daniel Bevenius wrote: > > > -1 I'd prefer to have checkstyle enabled by default, and integrate the > > > checkstyle into the IDE to avoid having to discover issue later when > > > building with maven. > > > > > > > > > On 20 May 2014 20:56, Bruno Oliveira <bruno(a)abstractj.org&gt; wrote: > > > > > > > +1 on having an specific profile for checkstyle > > > > > > > > On 2014-05-20, Matthias Wessendorf wrote: > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > w/ the advent of the 0.2.0 parent, we have checkstyle enabled; > > > > > > > > > > However, I am not that happy, as the default rules are IMO a bit odd > > > > (e.g. > > > > > the unused imports is pretty nasty when developing) > > > > > > > > > > We could: > > > > > a) get rid of it (perhaps not) > > > > > b) disable it on normal execution and only execute it on a release > > > > profile > > > > > or like that > > > > > > > > > > right now I am running w/ skip - but that's a bit nasty... > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > Matthias > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Matthias Wessendorf > > > > > > > > > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ > > > > > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf > > > > > twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > aerogear-dev mailing list > > > > > aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > > > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > abstractj > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > aerogear-dev mailing list > > > > aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > aerogear-dev mailing list > > > aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev > > > > > > -- > > > > abstractj > > _______________________________________________ > > aerogear-dev mailing list > > aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev > > _______________________________________________ > aerogear-dev mailing list > aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev -- abstractj JBoss, a division of Red Hat _______________________________________________ aerogear-dev mailing list aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev

This is the same issue as with unit tests. If they tend to take too much time, people are skipping them. What about activating checkstyle in CI and or Git push hook, for both PRs and direct commits upstream. This way a developer can develop without constraints *until* he wants to push the code upstream. Would it help? Thanks, Karel On Wed, 21 May 2014 11:38:02 -0300 Bruno Oliveira <bruno(a)abstractj.org&gt; wrote: > I don't think you need to prove anything, to me is just the matter of > reach a consensus and think about what works for the whole team. > > Is still possible skip checkstyle and leave the mess to the person doing the > release, even worse, the person doing the release can also skip this. > > The only thing able to guarantee the quality of the code is the developer's > conscience. I don't think that enforcing checkstyle default rules will make > us more conscious tbh. > > On 2014-05-21, Karel Piwko wrote: > > That's not true, it was discussed during team meeting at > > the times we've been using G+ as well (I can't prove that) and on ML as > > well: > > > > http://aerogear-dev.1069024.n5.nabble.com/aerogear-dev-JavaScript-formatt... > > > > It just took 7 month for the PR to be merged. The point of initial > > checkstyle rules set was chosen because: > > > > * It was identified as the least annoying setup on ML, there were a lot of > > +1s > > * There was a bug in released library caused by using unused import that > > was not available on classpath. I might be able to dig it out but it would > > take me a lot of time as I don't recall what project it was. > > > > +9001 for abstract's proposal on having same setup for IDE as well. There is > > nothing more annoying then something working in IDE but not in Maven. -1 > > for the specific profile, as it shifts responsibility to clean up the mess > > to the person doing the release. > > > > Karel > > > > On Tue, 20 May 2014 16:20:52 -0300 > > Bruno Oliveira <bruno(a)abstractj.org&gt; wrote: > > > > > The only reason to have checkstyle enabled by default is: if we agree on > > > which rules should be active or not and provide an specific IDE setup. > > > > > > Other than that, people like me will skip it. Why? Simple, I'm trying to > > > solve critical problems and also strugging to figure out why checkstyle > > > is do care about method lenght. > > > > > > So to me if you're guys really want to introduce it we need: > > > > > > - Definition of which rules were supposed to be active > > > - IDE profiles for Eclipse/IntelliJ > > > - Make the error messages something clear > > > > > > Otherwise, I'm -∞. It was never discussed here and if it exists on > > > aerogear-parent is all our fault. > > > > > > On 2014-05-20, Daniel Bevenius wrote: > > > > -1 I'd prefer to have checkstyle enabled by default, and integrate the > > > > checkstyle into the IDE to avoid having to discover issue later when > > > > building with maven. > > > > > > > > > > > > On 20 May 2014 20:56, Bruno Oliveira <bruno(a)abstractj.org&gt; wrote: > > > > > > > > > +1 on having an specific profile for checkstyle > > > > > > > > > > On 2014-05-20, Matthias Wessendorf wrote: > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > > > w/ the advent of the 0.2.0 parent, we have checkstyle enabled; > > > > > > > > > > > > However, I am not that happy, as the default rules are IMO a bit odd > > > > > (e.g. > > > > > > the unused imports is pretty nasty when developing) > > > > > > > > > > > > We could: > > > > > > a) get rid of it (perhaps not) > > > > > > b) disable it on normal execution and only execute it on a release > > > > > profile > > > > > > or like that > > > > > > > > > > > > right now I am running w/ skip - but that's a bit nasty... > > > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > Matthias > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Matthias Wessendorf > > > > > > > > > > > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ > > > > > > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf > > > > > > twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > aerogear-dev mailing list > > > > > > aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > > > > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > abstractj > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > aerogear-dev mailing list > > > > > aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > > > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > aerogear-dev mailing list > > > > aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > abstractj > > > _______________________________________________ > > > aerogear-dev mailing list > > > aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > > aerogear-dev mailing list > > aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev > > -- > > abstractj > > JBoss, a division of Red Hat > _______________________________________________ > aerogear-dev mailing list > aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev _______________________________________________ aerogear-dev mailing list aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev

On Thursday, May 22, 2014, Karel Piwko <kpiwko(a)redhat.com <mailto:kpiwko@redhat.com>> wrote: This is the same issue as with unit tests. If they tend to take too much time, people are skipping them. What about activating checkstyle in CI and or Git push hook, for both PRs and direct commits upstream. This way a developer can develop without constraints *until* he wants to push the code upstream. Would it help? -1 I think we should work on proper templates for our IDEs instead

Thanks, Karel On Wed, 21 May 2014 11:38:02 -0300 Bruno Oliveira <bruno(a)abstractj.org&gt; wrote: > I don't think you need to prove anything, to me is just the matter of > reach a consensus and think about what works for the whole team. > > Is still possible skip checkstyle and leave the mess to the person doing the > release, even worse, the person doing the release can also skip this. > > The only thing able to guarantee the quality of the code is the developer's > conscience. I don't think that enforcing checkstyle default rules will make > us more conscious tbh. > > On 2014-05-21, Karel Piwko wrote: > > That's not true, it was discussed during team meeting at > > the times we've been using G+ as well (I can't prove that) and on ML as > > well: > > > > http://aerogear-dev.1069024.n5.nabble.com/aerogear-dev-JavaScript-formatt... > > > > It just took 7 month for the PR to be merged. The point of initial > > checkstyle rules set was chosen because: > > > > * It was identified as the least annoying setup on ML, there were a lot of > > +1s > > * There was a bug in released library caused by using unused import that > > was not available on classpath. I might be able to dig it out but it would > > take me a lot of time as I don't recall what project it was. > > > > +9001 for abstract's proposal on having same setup for IDE as well. There is > > nothing more annoying then something working in IDE but not in Maven. -1 > > for the specific profile, as it shifts responsibility to clean up the mess > > to the person doing the release. > > > > Karel > > > > On Tue, 20 May 2014 16:20:52 -0300 > > Bruno Oliveira <bruno(a)abstractj.org&gt; wrote: > > > > > The only reason to have checkstyle enabled by default is: if we agree on > > > which rules should be active or not and provide an specific IDE setup. > > > > > > Other than that, people like me will skip it. Why? Simple, I'm trying to > > > solve critical problems and also strugging to figure out why checkstyle > > > is do care about method lenght. > > > > > > So to me if you're guys really want to introduce it we need: > > > > > > - Definition of which rules were supposed to be active > > > - IDE profiles for Eclipse/IntelliJ > > > - Make the error messages something clear > > > > > > Otherwise, I'm -∞. It was never discussed here and if it exists on > > > aerogear-parent is all our fault. > > > > > > On 2014-05-20, Daniel Bevenius wrote: > > > > -1 I'd prefer to have checkstyle enabled by default, and integrate the > > > > checkstyle into the IDE to avoid having to discover issue later when > > > > building with maven. > > > > > > > > > > > > On 20 May 2014 20:56, Bruno Oliveira <bruno(a)abstractj.org&gt; wrote: > > > > > > > > > +1 on having an specific profile for checkstyle > > > > > > > > > > On 2014-05-20, Matthias Wessendorf wrote: > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > > > w/ the advent of the 0.2.0 parent, we have checkstyle enabled; > > > > > > > > > > > > However, I am not that happy, as the default rules are IMO a bit odd > > > > > (e.g. > > > > > > the unused imports is pretty nasty when developing) > > > > > > > > > > > > We could: > > > > > > a) get rid of it (perhaps not) > > > > > > b) disable it on normal execution and only execute it on a release > > > > > profile > > > > > > or like that > > > > > > > > > > > > right now I am running w/ skip - but that's a bit nasty... > > > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > Matthias > > > > > > > > > -- Sent from Gmail Mobile _______________________________________________ aerogear-dev mailing list aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev

> -1 > > I think we should work on proper templates for our IDEs instead Major issue with IDE templates is that you cannot get both IDEA and Eclipse to reformat code in whole project into exactly same outcome. Unless you force people to use Eclipse formatter plugin in IDEA. Also... checkstyle maven plugin is buggy... :) sounds like you love checkstyle too :)