Re: [Codenarc-user] CodeNarc - Philosophy of the Basic Ruleset

[Hamlet D'A. <ham...@gm...>]

Having too many rules and difficulties categorizing them is a good
problem to have. For anyone else out there on this mailing list, the
last month has added almost 20(!) new rules. Wonderful!!!

I don't care how they are organized, just as long as the rules exist.
In my opinion, you (Chris) should act as benevolent dictator when it
comes to naming the rules, grouping the rules, and setting default
priorities on the rules.  Unilateral action is OK with me, especially
for rules that have been checked in but not put into a formal release!


-- 
Hamlet D'Arcy
ham...@gm...



On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Chris Mair <chr...@ea...> wrote:
> Hamlet (and anybody else),
>
> In many ways, I patterned CodeNarc after PMD. That included creating a
> "basic" ruleset. The intent was that these were "standard" rules that
> everyone could agree on. That is typically the first ruleset that people
> turn on, and no one would argue that the violations need to be fixed.
>
> I may have strayed a bit from that intent when I added the Unnecessary*Rules
> (e.g. UnnecessaryBooleanExpressionRule, UnnecessaryIfStatementRule, etc.),
> or perhaps other rules in the basic ruleset.. When I first started this
> project, I knew that categorization of rules would be challenging sometimes.
>
> A few days ago, I attended a presentation/discussion of the Sonar tool at my
> company. We were discussing PMD and Checkstyle, and a couple people
> indicated that even the PMD "basic" ruleset is somewhat subjective, in terms
> of being universal or not. Several people (including me) agreed that using
> tools like this eventually requires customization of the chosen rule set,
> since there really can't be a one-size-fits-all.
>
> All that being said... I am ok continuing with what we have, and leaving the
> current rules where they are. But if anyone has strong opinions about a
> better categorization, it would be better to consider reorganizing now
> rather than later.
>
> Thanks.
> Chris