Skip to content

Findbugs; add to verify phase, address current issues#298

Merged
rfecher merged 1 commit intomasterfrom
findbugs
Mar 31, 2015
Merged

Findbugs; add to verify phase, address current issues#298
rfecher merged 1 commit intomasterfrom
findbugs

Conversation

@chrisbennight
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

#228

Also added findbugs to the build now; had to exempt a few visitors (see the omitVisitors property) - all of them basically caused by

  • returning array types (byte[] value)
  • static non private instances of array types (or other objects)

it's that mutable state / security warning we talked about. There's ~90 of those across the whole project that are not tracked. Not necessarily issues, but probably need to take the time to verify before we annotate them directly.

But for any of the other errors findbugs will now fail the build. The error will be printed in the mvn output, but the easiest way is either to get a findbugs plugin in your ide, or if you type

mvn findbugs:gui

a window detailing and explaining the issues will pop up for each module build


also hits an admittedly unrelated javadoc issue - the -Xdoclint:none command needed to make java8 not blow up causes java7 to blow up. This was preventing the install phase from finishing, which caused the verify phase to pull old libraries from the cache, which led to random results - so resolved it here (with a profile that injects the argument and only activates for java8+)

Comment thread .travis.yml
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

2 threads per core on builds; seems to give a 2-10 minute speedup on travis.
Note that the install/javadoc version throws an exception using this.

@coveralls
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Coverage Status

Coverage decreased (-0.03%) to 31.71% when pulling 1048b2b on findbugs into 04a1127 on master.

1 similar comment
@coveralls
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Coverage Status

Coverage decreased (-0.03%) to 31.71% when pulling 1048b2b on findbugs into 04a1127 on master.

@coveralls
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Coverage Status

Coverage decreased (-0.02%) to 31.71% when pulling c1d5aa2 on findbugs into 04a1127 on master.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think this logic is correct; intent here (and in the other iterators changed in the same pattern) was to actually throw NoSuchElementException() when .next() was called on the end element. (It looks like we would just return null in that case instead - but normally never got there because it was guarded with hasNext())

@chrisbennight chrisbennight force-pushed the findbugs branch 3 times, most recently from 0679047 to 0e6504e Compare March 31, 2015 02:17
@coveralls
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Coverage Status

Coverage decreased (-0.03%) to 31.71% when pulling 03a4334 on findbugs into 04a1127 on master.

rfecher added a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 31, 2015
Findbugs; add to verify phase, address current issues
@rfecher rfecher merged commit 5de3a16 into master Mar 31, 2015
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants