Open GoogleCodeExporter opened 8 years ago
Are you sure that modification of IML is good way?
Original comment by aefimov....@gmail.com
on 30 Nov 2007 at 9:36
Good Question... It is hard to say if IML is the best way. I have only dabbled
in the
IDEA Open API, so I may not be aware of a better alternative.
Initially it seemed like a good place to store metadata about a file -- i.e.
"do not
spell check File A" -- since files are typically specific to a module. The
reason I
liked that idea is because we have very modularized projects. One IDEA module
might
be used in several projects (for example one module is currently used in 7
different
projects I work on). So it would be nice for the settings to not spell check
file A,
B, C and D to care over to any project that used that particular module
(including
future projects that add that module). But I suppose one could argue that
storing it
in the IML file has the potential disadvantage of causing problems for teams
that
share IML files; I personally would see that as an advantage. But, I am not
sure how
common of a practice it is to share IML files.
I wouldn't want to see any additional metadata file in the project area (i.e. a
sibling file to the IML file). So the alternative would be to store the info in
the
IDEA configuration directory. If there was a separate file per module, I think
that
would be workable. I wouldn't want to see a single file since over time that
could
get bloated with file info from obsolete projects that one has not worked on for
years. A separate file per module would make cleanup easier.
Then again, as I finish typing this, I started to think about using a
SupressWarnings
annotation -- or comment for non-java code -- in the file itself (as used in
other
inspections/intentions). That may be the best solution. And if you wanted to
get real
fancy, you could then implement "do not spell check statement", "do not spell
check
method", and "do not spell check class/file" variations, like many other of the
other
inspections/intentions have. (Even if not immediately, that could be a nice
future
feature.) The only issue there is that I know some purists argue that
development
tool metadata should not appear in a source code file.
At this point, I would say I have convinced myself that the SupressWarnings
annotation may be the best way to go. Perhaps you can solicit some opinions in
the
Plugin forum.
Original comment by mved...@gmail.com
on 4 Dec 2007 at 6:04
I was just looking at the tool, and see that the SupressWarnings functionality
is
there. (I was not aware that was native to the inspections engine - like I
said, I
have only dabbled with the plug-in API). The only downside at this point is to
turn
off all spell checking for a file takes several invocations:
@SuppressWarnings({"CommentsWithMistakes", "FieldNameWithMistakes",
"MethodNameWithMistakes", "StringWithMistakes", "LocalVariableNameWithMistakes",
"ClassNameWithMistakes"})
So that would be cumbersome to use when wanting to toggle spell checking off a
file.
So if you could somehow add a special annotation -- like
@SuppressWarnings("AllSpellChecks") -- that it easy to toggle, that would work.
Anyhow, just some more of my thoughts. Hopefully they are helpful. Thanks
again.
Original comment by mved...@gmail.com
on 4 Dec 2007 at 7:37
Btw, you can use scopes in IDE Settings->Errors->Project Profiles to disable
checking
in files by mask.
Original comment by aefimov....@gmail.com
on 4 Dec 2007 at 7:41
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
mved...@gmail.com
on 29 Nov 2007 at 8:52