yegor256 / qulice

Quality Police for Java projects: aggregator of Checkstyle and PMD
https://www.qulice.com
Other
301 stars 112 forks source link

Name 'id' must match pattern '^[a-z]{2,}[a-zA-Z]+$'. (MethodNameCheck) #960

Open dgroup opened 5 years ago

dgroup commented 5 years ago

Hi Guys, What is the business purpose of this check for the fields and methods with name equal to id? This name quite self-explaining.

The same is related to PMD

Why it can't be added into exclusions?

0crat commented 5 years ago

@krzyk/z please, pay attention to this issue

0crat commented 5 years ago

@dgroup/z this project will fix the problem faster if you donate a few dollars to it; just click here and pay via Stripe, it's very fast, convenient and appreciated; thanks a lot!

krzyk commented 5 years ago

@dgroup makes sense (considering that we already have https://github.com/teamed/qulice/issues/593)

krzyk commented 5 years ago

@0crat in

dgroup commented 5 years ago

@krzyk no response from 0crat more than 7 min. Looks like 0crat went into the infinitive loop due to your #960 self-link :)

0crat commented 5 years ago

@0crat in (here)

@krzyk Job #960 is now in scope, role is DEV

0crat commented 5 years ago

Bug was reported, see §29: +15 point(s) just awarded to @dgroup/z

dgroup commented 5 years ago

Also, I think the same situation with field/method equal to name. That's also quite self-explaining.

0crat commented 5 years ago

The job #960 assigned to @paulodamaso/z, here is why; the budget is 30 minutes, see §4; please, read §8 and §9; if the task is not clear, read this and this; there will be no monetary reward for this job

paulodamaso commented 5 years ago

@krzyk I believe that it has already been resolved in the linked PRs, what should I do here?

krzyk commented 5 years ago

@paulodamaso there wasn't any PR here, the linked issue is for slightly different problem

paulodamaso commented 5 years ago

@krzyk OK,thanks, I'll take a look soon

paulodamaso commented 5 years ago

@0crat refuse

0crat commented 5 years ago

@0crat refuse (here)

@paulodamaso The user @paulodamaso/z resigned from #960, please stop working. Reason for job resignation: Order was cancelled

0crat commented 5 years ago

Tasks refusal is discouraged, see §6: -15 point(s) just awarded to @paulodamaso/z

0crat commented 5 years ago

@krzyk/z everybody who has role DEV is banned at #960; I won't be able to assign anyone automatically; consider assigning someone manually (as in §19), or invite more people (as in §51), or remove the job from the scope (as in §14)

0crat commented 5 years ago

@krzyk/z everybody who has role DEV is banned at #960; I won't be able to assign anyone automatically; consider assigning someone manually (as in §19), or invite more people (as in §51), or remove the job from the scope (as in §14)

0crat commented 5 years ago

@krzyk/z everybody who has role DEV is banned at #960; I won't be able to assign anyone automatically; consider assigning someone manually (as in §19), or invite more people (as in §51), or remove the job from the scope (as in §14)

0crat commented 5 years ago

@krzyk/z everybody who has role DEV is banned at #960; I won't be able to assign anyone automatically; consider assigning someone manually (as in §19), or invite more people (as in §51), or remove the job from the scope (as in §14)

0crat commented 5 years ago

@krzyk/z everybody who has role DEV is banned at #960; I won't be able to assign anyone automatically; consider assigning someone manually (as in §19), or invite more people (as in §51), or remove the job from the scope (as in §14)

0crat commented 5 years ago

@krzyk/z everybody who has role DEV is banned at #960; I won't be able to assign anyone automatically; consider assigning someone manually (as in §19), or invite more people (as in §51), or remove the job from the scope (as in §14)

0crat commented 5 years ago

@krzyk/z everybody who has role DEV is banned at #960; I won't be able to assign anyone automatically; consider assigning someone manually (as in §19), or invite more people (as in §51), or remove the job from the scope (as in §14)

0crat commented 5 years ago

@krzyk/z everybody who has role DEV is banned at #960; I won't be able to assign anyone automatically; consider assigning someone manually (as in §19), or invite more people (as in §51), or remove the job from the scope (as in §14)

0crat commented 5 years ago

@krzyk/z everybody who has role DEV is banned at #960; I won't be able to assign anyone automatically; consider assigning someone manually (as in §19), or invite more people (as in §51), or remove the job from the scope (as in §14)