Re: [Codenarc-developer] SuppressWarnings refactoring (may effect IDE plugins)

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

Great stuff, Hamlet. I appreciate the simplification of the rule classes,
and being able to get rid of those *Ex methods.

I ran the new code (0.16) against Grails and Gradle source and encountered a
couple minor bugs, and checked in the fixes.

The performance difference between 0.15 and 0.16 is big!

Run times for Grails + Gradle source, with my sample set of 178 rules
enabled:
	CodeNarc 0.15 - average ~ 160 seconds
	CodeNarc 0.16 - average ~ 75 seconds

Sweet!

Thanks,
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: Hamlet D'Arcy [mailto:ham...@gm...] 
Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2011 5:16 AM
To: Cod...@li...; Cédric CHAMPEAU; René Scheibe
Subject: [Codenarc-developer] SuppressWarnings refactoring (may effect IDE
plugins)

Hi everyone,

This weekend I redesigned how the @SuppressWarnings annotations are handled
by CodeNarc. It may affect IDE support (but maybe not).

Previously, the @SuppressWarnings were handled by the AbstractAstVisitor
class. The problem with this is that not all rules subclass this class, so
not all rules respect @SuppressWarnings. Also, a subclass could sometimes
accidentally ignore the annotation. Also, the old design made it difficult
to support suppressions on parameters and general expressions. The design
has none of these problems and it will perform better as well. Also, by
removing the suppression complexity from the visitors, it makes those
classes more extensible.
Basically, it needs to be done for the two big features I have
planned: type inference and performance.

The new design moves the suppress warning functionality to a new
object: SuppressionAnalyzer. This object is invoked by any of the other
Analyzer objects, like FilesystemSourceAnalyzer and DirectorySourceAnalyzer.
If you have created a custom subclass of Analyzer, then you need to update
your code. If you have not created a custom subclass then do nothing and be
happy and quit reading!

If you have a custom analyzer, then your analyze(RuleSet):Results object
needs to change. Here is what a typical implementation should look like:

    Results analyze(RuleSet ruleSet) {
        def allViolations = []
        def suppressionService = new SuppressionAnalyzer(source)
        ruleSet.rules.each { rule ->
            if (!suppressionService.isRuleSuppressed(rule)) {
                def violations = rule.applyTo(source)
                violations.removeAll {
suppressionService.isViolationSuppressed(it) }
                allViolations.addAll(violations)
            }
        }
        new VirtualResults(allViolations)
    }

You can see that you just need to create the SuppressionAnalyzer object and
then make sure it gets called correctly.

The code is not checked in yet, but I expect it to be checked in later
today.

Thanks,

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Malware Security Report: Protecting Your Business, Customers, and the Bottom
Line. Protect your business and customers by understanding the threat from
malware and how it can impact your online business. 
http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51427462/
_______________________________________________
Codenarc-developer mailing list
Cod...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/codenarc-developer