[ checkstyle-Feature Requests-2836054 ] Support for @Generated annotation

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

[ checkstyle-Feature Requests-2836054 ] Support for @Generated annotation

SourceForge.net
Feature Requests item #2836054, was opened at 2009-08-12 00:17
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by dustin-parker
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=397081&aid=2836054&group_id=29721

Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread,
including the initial issue submission, for this request,
not just the latest update.
Category: None
Group: None
Status: Open
Priority: 5
Private: No
Submitted By: Julien HENRY (henryju)
Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody)
Summary: Support for @Generated annotation

Initial Comment:
@Generated aims at being the standard way to mark generated code [1].

Very often we have to configure checkstyle to ignore generated code as we
don't have any chance to fix it (especially if the generated code is cleaned and regenerated during each build).

I suggest to add an option to checkstyle that would allow to ignore
packages/classes/attributes/methods that are marked with @Generated
annotation.

Moreover @Generated support a "value" attribute that is used to give the
name of the code generator.

For example I can have in my src folder:

@Generated(value="foo")
public class MyClassGeneratedByFoo {
}

public class MyClassGeneratedByBar {

@Generated(value="bar")
public void methodGeneratedByBar() {
//.....
}

public void methodCustom() {
//.....
}
}

Say I don't have any control on the Bar code generator output style. On the opposite say I have control on Foo code generator.

So I would like to have a way to tell checkstyle to ignore methodGeneratedByBar
but not MyClassGeneratedByFoo.

For example you can add a String array parameter that would list all generator codes (matching @Generated value) that have to be excluded from the analysis.

Thanks

[1] http://java.sun.com/javase/6/docs/api/javax/annotation/Generated.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Dustin Parker (dustin-parker)
Date: 2012-06-11 10:37

Message:
Any progress on this? I'd be interested in submitting a patch if you have
any tips about where to start...

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Dale King (daleking)
Date: 2009-08-12 09:10

Message:
My point was not what was in the default, but that the tags be configurable
and not just add something that only did it for generated. Since it would
be configurable you could remove Test if you wanted to.

This all gets back to an idea I have brought up before. The problem with
Checkstyle configuration is that you can declare filters, but they only
apply to suppressing output under certain conditions. It still runs the
tests. What you really want is to specify conditions for when checks should
be run.

This is an example of that. You want to surpress running checks on these
classes. You don't want to have it run the checks and then just ignore the
output from running those checks.

You might want to look at this thread which discusses an idea I proposed
for making it more declarative of which checks get run on which files:

https://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=c80a0b890601042104u7792db4bqf69a732075dc5e5%40mail.gmail.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Julien HENRY (henryju)
Date: 2009-08-12 06:40

Message:
In my organisation, JUnit tests are part of developper work and have to
follow code guidelines. For me it seems logical because JUnit tests may
have to be maintained for a long time even if this is not (always) code
that is delivered to customer.

So in my case I want to ignore @Generated code (with perhaps some
exceptions for code generated by a home-made tool). But I don't want to
ignore @Test.

So I suggest to not put @Test in default exclusion list as it is not
encouraging good practices.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Dale King (daleking)
Date: 2009-08-12 06:19

Message:
It would probably be best to have two settings one for ignoring methods and
one for ignoring classes and have a parameter for the list of tags to
signal ignoring the class/method. By default this parameter could be set to
Generated. Might also want to include Test in the default for junit tests.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Oliver Burn (oburn)
Date: 2009-08-12 04:23

Message:
thanks, an interesting idea

----------------------------------------------------------------------

You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=397081&aid=2836054&group_id=29721

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
Checkstyle-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/checkstyle-devel
Loading...