[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-11869?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14508555#comment-14508555
]
Zhijie Shen commented on HADOOP-11869:
--------------------------------------
I defined a public method, which results in two warnings, which don't make much
sense:
{code}
<error line="645" column="3" severity="error" message="Method
'getUgi' is not designed for extension - needs to be abstract, final
or empty."
source="com.puppycrawl.tools.checkstyle.checks.design.DesignForExtensionCheck"/>
<error line="645" column="3" severity="error" message="Missing a Javadoc
comment."
source="com.puppycrawl.tools.checkstyle.checks.javadoc.JavadocMethodCheck"/>
{code}
Moreover, {{checkstyle-result-diff.txt}} is not helpful, it doesn't list the
detail of the additional checkstyle errors. On the other side,
{{checkstyle-result-patch.xml}} and {{checkstyle-result-trunk.xml}} are to big
to read efficiently.
> checkstyle rules/script need re-visiting
> ----------------------------------------
>
> Key: HADOOP-11869
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-11869
> Project: Hadoop Common
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Sidharta Seethana
>
> There seem to be a lot of arcane errors being caused by the checkstyle
> rules/script. Real issues tend to be buried in this noise. Some examples :
> 1. "Line is longer than 80 characters" - this shows up even for cases like
> import statements, package names
> 2. "Missing a Javadoc comment." - for every private member including cases
> like "Configuration conf".
> Having rules like these will result in a large number of pre-commit job
> failures. We should fine tune the rules used for checkstyle.
>
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
