Closed jukzi closed 2 weeks ago
442 files ±0 442 suites ±0 9m 30s :stopwatch: -38s 4 126 tests ±0 4 118 :white_check_mark: ±0 8 :zzz: ±0 0 :x: ±0 16 318 runs ±0 16 226 :white_check_mark: ±0 92 :zzz: ±0 0 :x: ±0
Results for commit 472eed8a. ± Comparison against base commit 4c4074f6.
- The static field should be accessed directly
In https://github.com/eclipse-platform/eclipse.platform.swt/pull/1253 actually I disabled that warning assuming it was written like that to increase readability.
In #1253 actually I disabled that warning
I see problem marker for this in workspace? disabling would be OK for me too, but seeing a Problem is not appropriate when it can just be fixed with quickfix.
I don't see a difference in readability.
In #1253 actually I disabled that warning
I see problem marker for this in workspace? disabling would be OK for me too, but seeing a Problem is not appropriate when it can just be fixed with quickfix.
Aren't these info-level markers issued by Sonar-Lint? But these could also be info-markers issued by JDT (haven't checked it).
I don't see a difference in readability.
I haven't looked in detail into the snippets and don't have a strong opinion. I just kept it as it is when unifying the preferences because I assumed the original authors found it better the way it is. Since these snippets are for consumers of SWT I think the code-style should be a good example. If we think qualifying the static access always with the declaring class I'm fine either.
But then the marker-level should be increased to warning to not add new issues.
Aren't these info-level markers issued by Sonar-Lint?
I don't even have that installed and you can look in your workspace's Problems view.
But then the marker-level should be increased to warning to not add new issues.
Well it was your commit that set org.eclipse.jdt.core.compiler.problem.indirectStaticAccess=info on all related projects. Before it was ignore/warning depending on project. What i do not understand is why info markers are not visible in jenkins. And why you modify warning levels without looking in the Problems view ;-) and why you submitted with +1 new warning, so did even ignore jenkins warnings. Anyway i think your "info" level is fair as static access is not any real problem. And linking the settings was a good idea.