Okay, I don't intend to apply any `@SuppressWarnings` during my refactoring
efforts - if IntelliJ still reports warnings after my efforts, then I can
live with that. :)
Jonathan
On 6 July 2017 at 00:31, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The only thing I can think of that conflicts sometimes with IDEA versus
> Eclipse are custom @SupressWarnings strings causing warnings in Eclipse.
> The default IntelliJ warnings tend to be simple things that wouldn't cause
> an issue, however, based in my experience. It's only some of the advanced
> inspections that can get strange.
>
> On 5 July 2017 at 17:24, Jonathan Bluett-Duncan <jbluettdun...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Great! Sounds like there's general agreement on me pursuing at least some
> > of these refactorings, right?
> >
> > On the subject of code style guidelines, AFAIK [lang] uses Checkstyle to
> > check style adherence? So I assume that if the corresponding Maven goal
> > passes after a refactoring, then it's okay to submit it as a GitHub PR.
> >
> > I don't expect changes suggested by IDEA to cause warnings/errors in
> > Eclipse or for the Eclipse Java compiler either. Is there an automated
> way
> > to explicitly check for things like this through Apache's infrastructure?
> > Or would I need to manually download Eclipse and check on my machine?
> >
> > I've already created an Apache JIRA account and signed the CLA, but now
> > it's not clear to me what to do next. Can someone kindly advise me on the
> > next step?
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> > On 5 July 2017 at 20:33, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Keep in mind that not all of us use IDEA. For example, I am on
> Eclipse. I
> > > do not think this should be an issue for any of these changes thougg. I
> > do
> > > not expect that changes from IDEA warnings would cause the Eclipse Java
> > > compiler to issue warnings, and vice-versa.
> > >
> > > Gary
> > >
> > > On Jul 5, 2017 12:23, "Allon Mureinik" <murei...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I've submitted several such cleanups over the past couple of month,
> and
> > > for
> > > > the most part, they've been well received.
> > > >
> > > > I think the key here is to improve the codebase when possible but to
> > > leave
> > > > room to deviate from IntelliJ's norms when there's a good reason to.
> > > > Perhaps annotating such places with @SuppressWarning would be the
> best
> > > > approach, to signal to future developers that the warning was
> > considered,
> > > > and we explicitly decided to suppress it (possibly with a comment in
> > the
> > > > code explaining why).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 6:42 PM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I like the idea myself at least, though I'm not sure if it
> conflicts
> > > with
> > > > > any coding styleguides established.
> > > > >
> > > > > On 4 July 2017 at 18:18, Jonathan Bluett-Duncan <
> > > jbluettdun...@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm interested in going through commons-lang with IntelliJ IDEA
> and
> > > > > > applying small refactorings to make the code base easier to read
> > > and/or
> > > > > > more performant (and also make IntelliJ IDEA itself report less
> > > > > warnings).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is this something that the [lang] team would find useful?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Examples of refactorings that I could apply include:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - Replace manual array-to-collection copy operations with
> > > > > > `Collections.addAll()`.
> > > > > > - Replace simple `String{Buffer,Builder}` usages with direct
> > > > `String`
> > > > > > concatenations or `String.format()`.
> > > > > > - Simplifying boolean expressions like `obj instanceof
> CharRange
> > > ==
> > > > > > false` to `!(obj instanceof CharRange)`.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > Jonathan
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
>
