From: Kai H. <Kai.Hartmann@Uni-Koeln.De> - 2006-06-03 16:33:20
|
Rajarshi Guha schrieb: > On Sat, 2006-06-03 at 13:29 +0200, Egon Willighagen wrote: >> On Monday 29 May 2006 20:05, Kai Hartmann wrote: >>> - Improper documentation >>> Automatically assigned documentation should IMHO never occur in the >>> source code (like "Description of the field"). Either leave it or - much >>> better - document it properly. (Though I think almost every software >>> project has a documentation problem ...) >> I totally agree... some developers have setup their IDE to automatically add >> this. I have removed such several times in the past, and emailed about this >> to the list in the past: it only messes up our statistics and helper tools >> that should help us improve the JavaDoc's. > > I second this - in fact given that many IDE's will automatically > generate Javadoc templates, there should be no excuse for not filling > them up with proper (even terse) documentation > > >>> - Unused variables, unused import statements etc. >>> Easy to detect and resolve, e.g. with Eclipse. >> I have been thinking of setting up a second version of pmd.xml, to just test >> for unused code, so that the nightly build service can report on this >> separately. Would this be useful? > > Yes. > Yes, pmd is really great - though I don't think all rules are worth the hunting, so an additional service would be nice. Did you define a useful subset of all rules that are appropriate or testing for all rules in the past? >>> Summing up, I think there should be a minimal set of important coding >>> style conventions that should be written and distributed to every new >>> developer joining the project (and every old one). Maybe this has been >>> addressed by the qa team already? >> No. Would you be willing to lead a team that writes up these standards? > > I'd be willing to help out. On a related note, what types of IDE's are > people using? If the majority are using Eclipse, IDEA etc, would it be a > good idea to export the respective settings wrt coding style, so that > all Eclipse users are using the same conventions and similarly for IDEA > users and so on I think Rajarshi (as qa leader) would be the obvious choice. As a part- of-a-part-time cdk developer, I gladly step back. Maybe we can collect a list of no more than 10 "Dos and Don'ts" that address the most important coding conventions we all can agree on (a temporary wiki page would be nice for collecting). I don't think a long document is a good way to get into this - because nobody will read it... but I didn't find a good example in the web. About the coding style settings in IDEs: I think this could be useful. With respect to the junit tests issue: I think Egon is right, this would be a very good way of doing it. It has to be propagated. Regarding the Jabber server: I don't have a final opinion. Are there so many people eager to join the cdk channel but are prevented from doing so by firewalls? ;) *My* major concern and the issue that brought me into this is a consistent and constant API, at least for the kernel classes, in the very near future. Maybe we can collect the tasks that have to be done to achieve this on a wiki page, too. Kai |