[KIEKER-762] CS check to detect conventions in record implementation

[rju]

JIRA Issue: KIEKER-762 CS check to detect conventions in record implementation Original Reporter: Andre van Hoorn

---

Static type fields, etc. when using the IMonitoringRecord.Factory method.

See also KIEKER-635 Done

Checklist:

[rju]

author nils-christian -- Wed, 20 Feb 2013 09:36:38 +0100

In order to understand this correctly:

A (non-abstract) class implementing IMonitoringRecord.Factory needs two things:

• A field private static final Class<?>[] TYPES
  - does it need a specific visibility modifier? The current manual suggest to use a public field, but our own records seem to use just private fields.
• A constructor with the Parameter final Object[] values

Keep in mind that I still cannot check whether a class indirectly implements the Factory interface.

[rju]

author nils-christian -- Wed, 20 Feb 2013 14:07:51 +0100

Implemented in ede86c9419145c9a4b98012789cce7f05113f291. In wasn't as simple as I thought it would be, but it seems to work now. The check should recognize both the constructor and the field.

Jan Waller: Please check whether this is what you need and close this ticket if this is the case.

[rju]

author Jan Waller -- Thu, 21 Feb 2013 17:53:40 +0100

Well, as far as I understand it, it is better than anything we had before.

I guess more is currently not possible.

[rju]

author Jan Waller -- Thu, 21 Feb 2013 18:13:06 +0100

You have a typo in your classname.

[rju]

author nils-christian -- Fri, 22 Feb 2013 19:26:30 +0100

Done in 9b052f018c16e3ee1eb224f75bc58492afdbcbfa.

I leave this ticket open until we solved the problem within KIEKER-635 Done . It is also possible that I replace this CS Check with a PMD rule.

[rju]

author nils-christian -- Sat, 23 Feb 2013 10:39:53 +0100

KIEKER-812 Done