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

[Chris M. <chr...@ea...>]

Thanks Hamlet. I'll try to stay benevolent. :-)

Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: Hamlet D'Arcy [mailto:ham...@gm...] 
Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2010 10:56 AM
To: Chris Mair
Cc: Cod...@li...
Subject: Re: CodeNarc - Philosophy of the Basic Ruleset


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