And why would you decorate your source code with FindBugs specific
annotations?
Kabir Khan wrote:
Sorry, yes I meant maven
On 1 Oct 2009, at 17:19, Paul Gier wrote:
> You mean in our Maven repo? Sure, I can add it today.
>
> Kabir Khan wrote:
>
>> Paul,
>> Can we get the latest findbugs plugin in our svn please?
>> On 30 Sep 2009, at 14:50, Anil Saldhana wrote:
>>
>>> AndyM was saying that before log trace call is finally written to
>>> the
>>> sink, there is some overhead in creating objects etc which are just
>>> thrown away if trace is not enabled. So rather than figure out
>>> whether
>>> trace is enabled upfront, log4j does this check at the time of
>>> writing
>>> after having done some processing.
>>>
>>> David M. Lloyd wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sometimes. But doing:
>>>>
>>>> log.trace("foo");
>>>>
>>>> is faster than:
>>>>
>>>> if (log.isTraceEnabled()) log.trace("foo");
>>>>
>>>> because there's no computation involved in the log parameter, so
>>>> it's just
>>>> a plain method call, and the internal impl will do the same check
>>>> anyway.
>>>>
>>>> - DML
>>>>
>>>> On 09/29/2009 10:53 AM, Anil Saldhana wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Additionally, as we discussed, flagging log.trace/debug without
>>>>> the
>>>>> log.isTraceEnabled/debugEnabled wrappers. That may be a feature.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jesper Pedersen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
http://findbugs.sourceforge.net/bugDescriptions.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> looks for doPrivileged in the descriptions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tuesday 29 September 2009 11:46:36 Anil Saldhana wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am wondering if FindBugs does flag the lack of privileged
>>>>>>> blocks
>>>>>>> around sensitive ops such as loadClass, setTCCL etc? I
cannot
>>>>>>> find any
>>>>>>> reference online.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> David M. Lloyd wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Does FindBugs support using @SuppressWarnings() or
similar?
>>>>>>>> This is what
>>>>>>>> I do with IDEA and it works well. I use
@SuppressWarnings
>>>>>>>> (on classes,
>>>>>>>> members, or local var declarations) or
"//noinspection" for
>>>>>>>> other cases,
>>>>>>>> and then add a comment beforehand explaining why the
problem
>>>>>>>> isn't really
>>>>>>>> a problem.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - DML
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 09/29/2009 08:38 AM, Jesper Pedersen wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Please, add a FindBugs filter file to the
configuration
>>>>>>>>> where we can add
>>>>>>>>> exclusions - f.ex. org.jfree (unless someone wants to
submit
>>>>>>>>> patches
>>>>>>>>> upstream).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Feel free to rip the JBJCA setup :)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>> Jesper
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Monday 28 September 2009 22:33:22 Shelly McGowan
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I've published the FindBugs report set up by
the JBoss QA
>>>>>>>>>> team run
>>>>>>>>>> against JBoss AS. The reports can be viewed
here:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
http://hudson.jboss.org/hudson/view/JBoss%20AS/job/JBoss-AS-6.0.x-findb
>>>>>>>>>> ugs/ 8/findbugsResult
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This report shows a total of 5675 warnings, 877
of which are
>>>>>>>>>> categorized as High Priority.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The report for Branch_5_x can be viewed here:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
http://hudson.jboss.org/hudson/view/JBoss%20AS/job/JBoss-AS-5.x-findbug
>>>>>>>>>> s/2/ findbugsResult/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The Branch_5_x report has 6089 warnings, 977 High
Priority.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> These issues should be addressed when committing
to trunk or
>>>>>>>>>> Branch_5_x. Take time out to look at the report
data. Most
>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>> warnings can be easily addressed.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I've started a parent JIRA task for
tracking:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
https://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/JBAS-7295
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> and will create subtasks as needed after
additional review
>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>> report data.