RE: [Clirr-devel] Maven plugin: filtering error messages

[Vincent M. <vma...@pi...>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cli...@li... [mailto:clirr-devel-
> ad...@li...] On Behalf Of Simon Kitching
> Sent: lundi 5 juillet 2004 09:19
> To: cli...@li...
> Subject: RE: [Clirr-devel] Maven plugin: filtering error messages
> 
> On Mon, 2004-07-05 at 19:03, Vincent Massol wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2004-07-02 at 15:09, Simon Kitching wrote:
> > >
> > > > One thing that should now be fairly easy to support if you wish to
> is
> > > > adding some stuff to the Ant task to allow users to selectively
> ignore
> > > > certain messages. Because each message has a unique id, it should be
> > > > simple to support tags in the ant file like:
> > > >
> > > >   <ignore-error class="com.acme.widget" message-id="7001"/>
> > > >
> > > > When a build "clirrs" (in your suggested terminology :-), but the
> user
> > > > doesn't care about that particular problem, they could add a tag
> like
> > > > this to suppress the error-counting for that problem. And it will
> work
> > > > for any locale, because the message-ids don't change by locale.
> > > >
> > > > Just a thought....
> >
> > I completely agree that we need a way to tell Clirr to ignore some
> checks.
> > However, I'd prefer that this ignore list be specified with the name of
> the
> > check (check id) instead of the message id. But I could live with both
> > solutions.
> 
> Salut Vincent!
> 
> You mean give the user the option to ignore "all method-related errors"
> for a class or set of classes?

No I meant more fine-grained than this. For example "Method signature
change", "Method return type changed", "Class changed to interface", etc

Look at the way Checkstyle works. Each check has a name. For example:
NoWhitespaceBefore. The good thing is that the classes implementing these
checks have this same name. And excluding a check actually boils down to
excluding a class.

Doing something like this for Clirr would be nice.

> 
> That's much more coarse-grained than having the user say "ignore all
> occurrences of error#7012", ie cases where a method has been added to an
> interface.
> 
> I *believe* (without any evidence at all :-) that the latter is more
> useful than the former.
> 
> But *both* would be useful. I could certainly live with a 0.4 release
> that only provides disabling of "all checks for method-related errors".
> It would at least provide users with a way to continue using clirr when
> it reports errors they wish to ignore - though possibly at the cost of
> accidentally ignoring some errors they did *not* intend to ignore.
> 
> On an implementation note, however, it is far *simpler* to exclude
> errors with certain message codes from the "core" point of view.
> Implementing the "exclude all method-related errors" would probably best
> be implemented by excluding all messages in the range 7000-7999. But
> given that, why not expose the finer control to the user?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Simon
> 

-Vincent