[lang] Applying IntelliJ IDEA refactorings

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
13 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

[lang] Applying IntelliJ IDEA refactorings

Jonathan Bluett-Duncan
Hi all,

I'm interested in going through commons-lang with IntelliJ IDEA and
applying small refactorings to make the code base easier to read and/or
more performant (and also make IntelliJ IDEA itself report less warnings).

Is this something that the [lang] team would find useful?

Examples of refactorings that I could apply include:

   - Replace manual array-to-collection copy operations with
   `Collections.addAll()`.
   - Replace simple `String{Buffer,Builder}` usages with direct `String`
   concatenations or `String.format()`.
   - Simplifying boolean expressions like `obj instanceof CharRange ==
   false` to `!(obj instanceof CharRange)`.


Cheers,
Jonathan
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [lang] Applying IntelliJ IDEA refactorings

Matt Sicker
I like the idea myself at least, though I'm not sure if it conflicts with
any coding styleguides established.

On 4 July 2017 at 18:18, Jonathan Bluett-Duncan <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I'm interested in going through commons-lang with IntelliJ IDEA and
> applying small refactorings to make the code base easier to read and/or
> more performant (and also make IntelliJ IDEA itself report less warnings).
>
> Is this something that the [lang] team would find useful?
>
> Examples of refactorings that I could apply include:
>
>    - Replace manual array-to-collection copy operations with
>    `Collections.addAll()`.
>    - Replace simple `String{Buffer,Builder}` usages with direct `String`
>    concatenations or `String.format()`.
>    - Simplifying boolean expressions like `obj instanceof CharRange ==
>    false` to `!(obj instanceof CharRange)`.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Jonathan
>



--
Matt Sicker <[hidden email]>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [lang] Applying IntelliJ IDEA refactorings

Allon Mureinik
I've submitted several such cleanups over the past couple of month, and for
the most part, they've been well received.

I think the key here is to improve the codebase when possible but to leave
room to deviate from IntelliJ's norms when there's a good reason to.
Perhaps annotating such places with @SuppressWarning would be the best
approach, to signal to future developers that the warning was considered,
and we explicitly decided to suppress it (possibly with a comment in the
code explaining why).


On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 6:42 PM, Matt Sicker <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I like the idea myself at least, though I'm not sure if it conflicts with
> any coding styleguides established.
>
> On 4 July 2017 at 18:18, Jonathan Bluett-Duncan <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I'm interested in going through commons-lang with IntelliJ IDEA and
> > applying small refactorings to make the code base easier to read and/or
> > more performant (and also make IntelliJ IDEA itself report less
> warnings).
> >
> > Is this something that the [lang] team would find useful?
> >
> > Examples of refactorings that I could apply include:
> >
> >    - Replace manual array-to-collection copy operations with
> >    `Collections.addAll()`.
> >    - Replace simple `String{Buffer,Builder}` usages with direct `String`
> >    concatenations or `String.format()`.
> >    - Simplifying boolean expressions like `obj instanceof CharRange ==
> >    false` to `!(obj instanceof CharRange)`.
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Jonathan
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Matt Sicker <[hidden email]>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [lang] Applying IntelliJ IDEA refactorings

garydgregory
Keep in mind that not all of us use IDEA. For example, I am on Eclipse. I
do not think this should be an issue for any of these changes thougg. I do
not expect that changes from IDEA warnings would cause the Eclipse Java
compiler to issue warnings, and vice-versa.

Gary

On Jul 5, 2017 12:23, "Allon Mureinik" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I've submitted several such cleanups over the past couple of month, and for
> the most part, they've been well received.
>
> I think the key here is to improve the codebase when possible but to leave
> room to deviate from IntelliJ's norms when there's a good reason to.
> Perhaps annotating such places with @SuppressWarning would be the best
> approach, to signal to future developers that the warning was considered,
> and we explicitly decided to suppress it (possibly with a comment in the
> code explaining why).
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 6:42 PM, Matt Sicker <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > I like the idea myself at least, though I'm not sure if it conflicts with
> > any coding styleguides established.
> >
> > On 4 July 2017 at 18:18, Jonathan Bluett-Duncan <[hidden email]
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I'm interested in going through commons-lang with IntelliJ IDEA and
> > > applying small refactorings to make the code base easier to read and/or
> > > more performant (and also make IntelliJ IDEA itself report less
> > warnings).
> > >
> > > Is this something that the [lang] team would find useful?
> > >
> > > Examples of refactorings that I could apply include:
> > >
> > >    - Replace manual array-to-collection copy operations with
> > >    `Collections.addAll()`.
> > >    - Replace simple `String{Buffer,Builder}` usages with direct
> `String`
> > >    concatenations or `String.format()`.
> > >    - Simplifying boolean expressions like `obj instanceof CharRange ==
> > >    false` to `!(obj instanceof CharRange)`.
> > >
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Jonathan
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Matt Sicker <[hidden email]>
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [lang] Applying IntelliJ IDEA refactorings

Jonathan Bluett-Duncan
Great! Sounds like there's general agreement on me pursuing at least some
of these refactorings, right?

On the subject of code style guidelines, AFAIK [lang] uses Checkstyle to
check style adherence? So I assume that if the corresponding Maven goal
passes after a refactoring, then it's okay to submit it as a GitHub PR.

I don't expect changes suggested by IDEA to cause warnings/errors in
Eclipse or for the Eclipse Java compiler either. Is there an automated way
to explicitly check for things like this through Apache's infrastructure?
Or would I need to manually download Eclipse and check on my machine?

I've already created an Apache JIRA account and signed the CLA, but now
it's not clear to me what to do next. Can someone kindly advise me on the
next step?

Jonathan

On 5 July 2017 at 20:33, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Keep in mind that not all of us use IDEA. For example, I am on Eclipse. I
> do not think this should be an issue for any of these changes thougg. I do
> not expect that changes from IDEA warnings would cause the Eclipse Java
> compiler to issue warnings, and vice-versa.
>
> Gary
>
> On Jul 5, 2017 12:23, "Allon Mureinik" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > I've submitted several such cleanups over the past couple of month, and
> for
> > the most part, they've been well received.
> >
> > I think the key here is to improve the codebase when possible but to
> leave
> > room to deviate from IntelliJ's norms when there's a good reason to.
> > Perhaps annotating such places with @SuppressWarning would be the best
> > approach, to signal to future developers that the warning was considered,
> > and we explicitly decided to suppress it (possibly with a comment in the
> > code explaining why).
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 6:42 PM, Matt Sicker <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > I like the idea myself at least, though I'm not sure if it conflicts
> with
> > > any coding styleguides established.
> > >
> > > On 4 July 2017 at 18:18, Jonathan Bluett-Duncan <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > I'm interested in going through commons-lang with IntelliJ IDEA and
> > > > applying small refactorings to make the code base easier to read
> and/or
> > > > more performant (and also make IntelliJ IDEA itself report less
> > > warnings).
> > > >
> > > > Is this something that the [lang] team would find useful?
> > > >
> > > > Examples of refactorings that I could apply include:
> > > >
> > > >    - Replace manual array-to-collection copy operations with
> > > >    `Collections.addAll()`.
> > > >    - Replace simple `String{Buffer,Builder}` usages with direct
> > `String`
> > > >    concatenations or `String.format()`.
> > > >    - Simplifying boolean expressions like `obj instanceof CharRange
> ==
> > > >    false` to `!(obj instanceof CharRange)`.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Jonathan
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Matt Sicker <[hidden email]>
> > >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [lang] Applying IntelliJ IDEA refactorings

Matt Sicker
The only thing I can think of that conflicts sometimes with IDEA versus
Eclipse are custom @SupressWarnings strings causing warnings in Eclipse.
The default IntelliJ warnings tend to be simple things that wouldn't cause
an issue, however, based in my experience. It's only some of the advanced
inspections that can get strange.

On 5 July 2017 at 17:24, Jonathan Bluett-Duncan <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Great! Sounds like there's general agreement on me pursuing at least some
> of these refactorings, right?
>
> On the subject of code style guidelines, AFAIK [lang] uses Checkstyle to
> check style adherence? So I assume that if the corresponding Maven goal
> passes after a refactoring, then it's okay to submit it as a GitHub PR.
>
> I don't expect changes suggested by IDEA to cause warnings/errors in
> Eclipse or for the Eclipse Java compiler either. Is there an automated way
> to explicitly check for things like this through Apache's infrastructure?
> Or would I need to manually download Eclipse and check on my machine?
>
> I've already created an Apache JIRA account and signed the CLA, but now
> it's not clear to me what to do next. Can someone kindly advise me on the
> next step?
>
> Jonathan
>
> On 5 July 2017 at 20:33, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Keep in mind that not all of us use IDEA. For example, I am on Eclipse. I
> > do not think this should be an issue for any of these changes thougg. I
> do
> > not expect that changes from IDEA warnings would cause the Eclipse Java
> > compiler to issue warnings, and vice-versa.
> >
> > Gary
> >
> > On Jul 5, 2017 12:23, "Allon Mureinik" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > I've submitted several such cleanups over the past couple of month, and
> > for
> > > the most part, they've been well received.
> > >
> > > I think the key here is to improve the codebase when possible but to
> > leave
> > > room to deviate from IntelliJ's norms when there's a good reason to.
> > > Perhaps annotating such places with @SuppressWarning would be the best
> > > approach, to signal to future developers that the warning was
> considered,
> > > and we explicitly decided to suppress it (possibly with a comment in
> the
> > > code explaining why).
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 6:42 PM, Matt Sicker <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I like the idea myself at least, though I'm not sure if it conflicts
> > with
> > > > any coding styleguides established.
> > > >
> > > > On 4 July 2017 at 18:18, Jonathan Bluett-Duncan <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm interested in going through commons-lang with IntelliJ IDEA and
> > > > > applying small refactorings to make the code base easier to read
> > and/or
> > > > > more performant (and also make IntelliJ IDEA itself report less
> > > > warnings).
> > > > >
> > > > > Is this something that the [lang] team would find useful?
> > > > >
> > > > > Examples of refactorings that I could apply include:
> > > > >
> > > > >    - Replace manual array-to-collection copy operations with
> > > > >    `Collections.addAll()`.
> > > > >    - Replace simple `String{Buffer,Builder}` usages with direct
> > > `String`
> > > > >    concatenations or `String.format()`.
> > > > >    - Simplifying boolean expressions like `obj instanceof CharRange
> > ==
> > > > >    false` to `!(obj instanceof CharRange)`.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > Jonathan
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Matt Sicker <[hidden email]>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>



--
Matt Sicker <[hidden email]>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [lang] Applying IntelliJ IDEA refactorings

Jonathan Bluett-Duncan
Okay, I don't intend to apply any `@SuppressWarnings` during my refactoring
efforts - if IntelliJ still reports warnings after my efforts, then I can
live with that. :)

Jonathan

On 6 July 2017 at 00:31, Matt Sicker <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The only thing I can think of that conflicts sometimes with IDEA versus
> Eclipse are custom @SupressWarnings strings causing warnings in Eclipse.
> The default IntelliJ warnings tend to be simple things that wouldn't cause
> an issue, however, based in my experience. It's only some of the advanced
> inspections that can get strange.
>
> On 5 July 2017 at 17:24, Jonathan Bluett-Duncan <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Great! Sounds like there's general agreement on me pursuing at least some
> > of these refactorings, right?
> >
> > On the subject of code style guidelines, AFAIK [lang] uses Checkstyle to
> > check style adherence? So I assume that if the corresponding Maven goal
> > passes after a refactoring, then it's okay to submit it as a GitHub PR.
> >
> > I don't expect changes suggested by IDEA to cause warnings/errors in
> > Eclipse or for the Eclipse Java compiler either. Is there an automated
> way
> > to explicitly check for things like this through Apache's infrastructure?
> > Or would I need to manually download Eclipse and check on my machine?
> >
> > I've already created an Apache JIRA account and signed the CLA, but now
> > it's not clear to me what to do next. Can someone kindly advise me on the
> > next step?
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> > On 5 July 2017 at 20:33, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Keep in mind that not all of us use IDEA. For example, I am on
> Eclipse. I
> > > do not think this should be an issue for any of these changes thougg. I
> > do
> > > not expect that changes from IDEA warnings would cause the Eclipse Java
> > > compiler to issue warnings, and vice-versa.
> > >
> > > Gary
> > >
> > > On Jul 5, 2017 12:23, "Allon Mureinik" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I've submitted several such cleanups over the past couple of month,
> and
> > > for
> > > > the most part, they've been well received.
> > > >
> > > > I think the key here is to improve the codebase when possible but to
> > > leave
> > > > room to deviate from IntelliJ's norms when there's a good reason to.
> > > > Perhaps annotating such places with @SuppressWarning would be the
> best
> > > > approach, to signal to future developers that the warning was
> > considered,
> > > > and we explicitly decided to suppress it (possibly with a comment in
> > the
> > > > code explaining why).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 6:42 PM, Matt Sicker <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I like the idea myself at least, though I'm not sure if it
> conflicts
> > > with
> > > > > any coding styleguides established.
> > > > >
> > > > > On 4 July 2017 at 18:18, Jonathan Bluett-Duncan <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm interested in going through commons-lang with IntelliJ IDEA
> and
> > > > > > applying small refactorings to make the code base easier to read
> > > and/or
> > > > > > more performant (and also make IntelliJ IDEA itself report less
> > > > > warnings).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is this something that the [lang] team would find useful?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Examples of refactorings that I could apply include:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >    - Replace manual array-to-collection copy operations with
> > > > > >    `Collections.addAll()`.
> > > > > >    - Replace simple `String{Buffer,Builder}` usages with direct
> > > > `String`
> > > > > >    concatenations or `String.format()`.
> > > > > >    - Simplifying boolean expressions like `obj instanceof
> CharRange
> > > ==
> > > > > >    false` to `!(obj instanceof CharRange)`.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > Jonathan
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Matt Sicker <[hidden email]>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Matt Sicker <[hidden email]>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [lang] Applying IntelliJ IDEA refactorings

Jonathan Bluett-Duncan
I've re-read the contribution guidelines
<https://github.com/apache/commons-lang/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md>, but
it's not clear to me if my changes are non-trivial enough to warrant a new
JIRA issue.

Can someone advise me on this?

Jonathan

On 6 July 2017 at 00:51, Jonathan Bluett-Duncan <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Okay, I don't intend to apply any `@SuppressWarnings` during my
> refactoring efforts - if IntelliJ still reports warnings after my efforts,
> then I can live with that. :)
>
> Jonathan
>
> On 6 July 2017 at 00:31, Matt Sicker <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> The only thing I can think of that conflicts sometimes with IDEA versus
>> Eclipse are custom @SupressWarnings strings causing warnings in Eclipse.
>> The default IntelliJ warnings tend to be simple things that wouldn't cause
>> an issue, however, based in my experience. It's only some of the advanced
>> inspections that can get strange.
>>
>> On 5 July 2017 at 17:24, Jonathan Bluett-Duncan <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Great! Sounds like there's general agreement on me pursuing at least
>> some
>> > of these refactorings, right?
>> >
>> > On the subject of code style guidelines, AFAIK [lang] uses Checkstyle to
>> > check style adherence? So I assume that if the corresponding Maven goal
>> > passes after a refactoring, then it's okay to submit it as a GitHub PR.
>> >
>> > I don't expect changes suggested by IDEA to cause warnings/errors in
>> > Eclipse or for the Eclipse Java compiler either. Is there an automated
>> way
>> > to explicitly check for things like this through Apache's
>> infrastructure?
>> > Or would I need to manually download Eclipse and check on my machine?
>> >
>> > I've already created an Apache JIRA account and signed the CLA, but now
>> > it's not clear to me what to do next. Can someone kindly advise me on
>> the
>> > next step?
>> >
>> > Jonathan
>> >
>> > On 5 July 2017 at 20:33, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Keep in mind that not all of us use IDEA. For example, I am on
>> Eclipse. I
>> > > do not think this should be an issue for any of these changes thougg.
>> I
>> > do
>> > > not expect that changes from IDEA warnings would cause the Eclipse
>> Java
>> > > compiler to issue warnings, and vice-versa.
>> > >
>> > > Gary
>> > >
>> > > On Jul 5, 2017 12:23, "Allon Mureinik" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > I've submitted several such cleanups over the past couple of month,
>> and
>> > > for
>> > > > the most part, they've been well received.
>> > > >
>> > > > I think the key here is to improve the codebase when possible but to
>> > > leave
>> > > > room to deviate from IntelliJ's norms when there's a good reason to.
>> > > > Perhaps annotating such places with @SuppressWarning would be the
>> best
>> > > > approach, to signal to future developers that the warning was
>> > considered,
>> > > > and we explicitly decided to suppress it (possibly with a comment in
>> > the
>> > > > code explaining why).
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 6:42 PM, Matt Sicker <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > I like the idea myself at least, though I'm not sure if it
>> conflicts
>> > > with
>> > > > > any coding styleguides established.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On 4 July 2017 at 18:18, Jonathan Bluett-Duncan <
>> > > [hidden email]
>> > > > >
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > Hi all,
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > I'm interested in going through commons-lang with IntelliJ IDEA
>> and
>> > > > > > applying small refactorings to make the code base easier to read
>> > > and/or
>> > > > > > more performant (and also make IntelliJ IDEA itself report less
>> > > > > warnings).
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Is this something that the [lang] team would find useful?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Examples of refactorings that I could apply include:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >    - Replace manual array-to-collection copy operations with
>> > > > > >    `Collections.addAll()`.
>> > > > > >    - Replace simple `String{Buffer,Builder}` usages with direct
>> > > > `String`
>> > > > > >    concatenations or `String.format()`.
>> > > > > >    - Simplifying boolean expressions like `obj instanceof
>> CharRange
>> > > ==
>> > > > > >    false` to `!(obj instanceof CharRange)`.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Cheers,
>> > > > > > Jonathan
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > --
>> > > > > Matt Sicker <[hidden email]>
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Matt Sicker <[hidden email]>
>>
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [lang] Applying IntelliJ IDEA refactorings

garydgregory
I would think an ICLA is not needed if the only thing we are talking about
are clean-up style refactoring.

Gary

On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 2:27 PM, Jonathan Bluett-Duncan <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> I've re-read the contribution guidelines
> <https://github.com/apache/commons-lang/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md>, but
> it's not clear to me if my changes are non-trivial enough to warrant a new
> JIRA issue.
>
> Can someone advise me on this?
>
> Jonathan
>
> On 6 July 2017 at 00:51, Jonathan Bluett-Duncan <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Okay, I don't intend to apply any `@SuppressWarnings` during my
> > refactoring efforts - if IntelliJ still reports warnings after my
> efforts,
> > then I can live with that. :)
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> > On 6 July 2017 at 00:31, Matt Sicker <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> The only thing I can think of that conflicts sometimes with IDEA versus
> >> Eclipse are custom @SupressWarnings strings causing warnings in Eclipse.
> >> The default IntelliJ warnings tend to be simple things that wouldn't
> cause
> >> an issue, however, based in my experience. It's only some of the
> advanced
> >> inspections that can get strange.
> >>
> >> On 5 July 2017 at 17:24, Jonathan Bluett-Duncan <
> [hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Great! Sounds like there's general agreement on me pursuing at least
> >> some
> >> > of these refactorings, right?
> >> >
> >> > On the subject of code style guidelines, AFAIK [lang] uses Checkstyle
> to
> >> > check style adherence? So I assume that if the corresponding Maven
> goal
> >> > passes after a refactoring, then it's okay to submit it as a GitHub
> PR.
> >> >
> >> > I don't expect changes suggested by IDEA to cause warnings/errors in
> >> > Eclipse or for the Eclipse Java compiler either. Is there an automated
> >> way
> >> > to explicitly check for things like this through Apache's
> >> infrastructure?
> >> > Or would I need to manually download Eclipse and check on my machine?
> >> >
> >> > I've already created an Apache JIRA account and signed the CLA, but
> now
> >> > it's not clear to me what to do next. Can someone kindly advise me on
> >> the
> >> > next step?
> >> >
> >> > Jonathan
> >> >
> >> > On 5 July 2017 at 20:33, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Keep in mind that not all of us use IDEA. For example, I am on
> >> Eclipse. I
> >> > > do not think this should be an issue for any of these changes
> thougg.
> >> I
> >> > do
> >> > > not expect that changes from IDEA warnings would cause the Eclipse
> >> Java
> >> > > compiler to issue warnings, and vice-versa.
> >> > >
> >> > > Gary
> >> > >
> >> > > On Jul 5, 2017 12:23, "Allon Mureinik" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > I've submitted several such cleanups over the past couple of
> month,
> >> and
> >> > > for
> >> > > > the most part, they've been well received.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I think the key here is to improve the codebase when possible but
> to
> >> > > leave
> >> > > > room to deviate from IntelliJ's norms when there's a good reason
> to.
> >> > > > Perhaps annotating such places with @SuppressWarning would be the
> >> best
> >> > > > approach, to signal to future developers that the warning was
> >> > considered,
> >> > > > and we explicitly decided to suppress it (possibly with a comment
> in
> >> > the
> >> > > > code explaining why).
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 6:42 PM, Matt Sicker <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > I like the idea myself at least, though I'm not sure if it
> >> conflicts
> >> > > with
> >> > > > > any coding styleguides established.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > On 4 July 2017 at 18:18, Jonathan Bluett-Duncan <
> >> > > [hidden email]
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > Hi all,
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > I'm interested in going through commons-lang with IntelliJ
> IDEA
> >> and
> >> > > > > > applying small refactorings to make the code base easier to
> read
> >> > > and/or
> >> > > > > > more performant (and also make IntelliJ IDEA itself report
> less
> >> > > > > warnings).
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Is this something that the [lang] team would find useful?
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Examples of refactorings that I could apply include:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >    - Replace manual array-to-collection copy operations with
> >> > > > > >    `Collections.addAll()`.
> >> > > > > >    - Replace simple `String{Buffer,Builder}` usages with
> direct
> >> > > > `String`
> >> > > > > >    concatenations or `String.format()`.
> >> > > > > >    - Simplifying boolean expressions like `obj instanceof
> >> CharRange
> >> > > ==
> >> > > > > >    false` to `!(obj instanceof CharRange)`.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Cheers,
> >> > > > > > Jonathan
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > --
> >> > > > > Matt Sicker <[hidden email]>
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Matt Sicker <[hidden email]>
> >>
> >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [lang] Applying IntelliJ IDEA refactorings

Jonathan Bluett-Duncan
Okay, thanks for the clarification Gary.

Does this mean, by extension, that there's no need to create a new JIRA
issue? In other words, would just a new GitHub PR be fine (at least for
now)?

Jonathan

On 10 July 2017 at 01:32, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I would think an ICLA is not needed if the only thing we are talking about
> are clean-up style refactoring.
>
> Gary
>
> On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 2:27 PM, Jonathan Bluett-Duncan <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > I've re-read the contribution guidelines
> > <https://github.com/apache/commons-lang/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md>,
> but
> > it's not clear to me if my changes are non-trivial enough to warrant a
> new
> > JIRA issue.
> >
> > Can someone advise me on this?
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> > On 6 July 2017 at 00:51, Jonathan Bluett-Duncan <[hidden email]
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Okay, I don't intend to apply any `@SuppressWarnings` during my
> > > refactoring efforts - if IntelliJ still reports warnings after my
> > efforts,
> > > then I can live with that. :)
> > >
> > > Jonathan
> > >
> > > On 6 July 2017 at 00:31, Matt Sicker <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> The only thing I can think of that conflicts sometimes with IDEA
> versus
> > >> Eclipse are custom @SupressWarnings strings causing warnings in
> Eclipse.
> > >> The default IntelliJ warnings tend to be simple things that wouldn't
> > cause
> > >> an issue, however, based in my experience. It's only some of the
> > advanced
> > >> inspections that can get strange.
> > >>
> > >> On 5 July 2017 at 17:24, Jonathan Bluett-Duncan <
> > [hidden email]>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Great! Sounds like there's general agreement on me pursuing at least
> > >> some
> > >> > of these refactorings, right?
> > >> >
> > >> > On the subject of code style guidelines, AFAIK [lang] uses
> Checkstyle
> > to
> > >> > check style adherence? So I assume that if the corresponding Maven
> > goal
> > >> > passes after a refactoring, then it's okay to submit it as a GitHub
> > PR.
> > >> >
> > >> > I don't expect changes suggested by IDEA to cause warnings/errors in
> > >> > Eclipse or for the Eclipse Java compiler either. Is there an
> automated
> > >> way
> > >> > to explicitly check for things like this through Apache's
> > >> infrastructure?
> > >> > Or would I need to manually download Eclipse and check on my
> machine?
> > >> >
> > >> > I've already created an Apache JIRA account and signed the CLA, but
> > now
> > >> > it's not clear to me what to do next. Can someone kindly advise me
> on
> > >> the
> > >> > next step?
> > >> >
> > >> > Jonathan
> > >> >
> > >> > On 5 July 2017 at 20:33, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Keep in mind that not all of us use IDEA. For example, I am on
> > >> Eclipse. I
> > >> > > do not think this should be an issue for any of these changes
> > thougg.
> > >> I
> > >> > do
> > >> > > not expect that changes from IDEA warnings would cause the Eclipse
> > >> Java
> > >> > > compiler to issue warnings, and vice-versa.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Gary
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Jul 5, 2017 12:23, "Allon Mureinik" <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > I've submitted several such cleanups over the past couple of
> > month,
> > >> and
> > >> > > for
> > >> > > > the most part, they've been well received.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > I think the key here is to improve the codebase when possible
> but
> > to
> > >> > > leave
> > >> > > > room to deviate from IntelliJ's norms when there's a good reason
> > to.
> > >> > > > Perhaps annotating such places with @SuppressWarning would be
> the
> > >> best
> > >> > > > approach, to signal to future developers that the warning was
> > >> > considered,
> > >> > > > and we explicitly decided to suppress it (possibly with a
> comment
> > in
> > >> > the
> > >> > > > code explaining why).
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 6:42 PM, Matt Sicker <[hidden email]>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > I like the idea myself at least, though I'm not sure if it
> > >> conflicts
> > >> > > with
> > >> > > > > any coding styleguides established.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > On 4 July 2017 at 18:18, Jonathan Bluett-Duncan <
> > >> > > [hidden email]
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Hi all,
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > I'm interested in going through commons-lang with IntelliJ
> > IDEA
> > >> and
> > >> > > > > > applying small refactorings to make the code base easier to
> > read
> > >> > > and/or
> > >> > > > > > more performant (and also make IntelliJ IDEA itself report
> > less
> > >> > > > > warnings).
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Is this something that the [lang] team would find useful?
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Examples of refactorings that I could apply include:
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > >    - Replace manual array-to-collection copy operations with
> > >> > > > > >    `Collections.addAll()`.
> > >> > > > > >    - Replace simple `String{Buffer,Builder}` usages with
> > direct
> > >> > > > `String`
> > >> > > > > >    concatenations or `String.format()`.
> > >> > > > > >    - Simplifying boolean expressions like `obj instanceof
> > >> CharRange
> > >> > > ==
> > >> > > > > >    false` to `!(obj instanceof CharRange)`.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Cheers,
> > >> > > > > > Jonathan
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > --
> > >> > > > > Matt Sicker <[hidden email]>
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Matt Sicker <[hidden email]>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [lang] Applying IntelliJ IDEA refactorings

Matt Sicker
I personally don't see the point of making a jira issue for it.

On 9 July 2017 at 20:19, Jonathan Bluett-Duncan <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Okay, thanks for the clarification Gary.
>
> Does this mean, by extension, that there's no need to create a new JIRA
> issue? In other words, would just a new GitHub PR be fine (at least for
> now)?
>
> Jonathan
>
> On 10 July 2017 at 01:32, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > I would think an ICLA is not needed if the only thing we are talking
> about
> > are clean-up style refactoring.
> >
> > Gary
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 2:27 PM, Jonathan Bluett-Duncan <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > I've re-read the contribution guidelines
> > > <https://github.com/apache/commons-lang/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md>,
> > but
> > > it's not clear to me if my changes are non-trivial enough to warrant a
> > new
> > > JIRA issue.
> > >
> > > Can someone advise me on this?
> > >
> > > Jonathan
> > >
> > > On 6 July 2017 at 00:51, Jonathan Bluett-Duncan <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Okay, I don't intend to apply any `@SuppressWarnings` during my
> > > > refactoring efforts - if IntelliJ still reports warnings after my
> > > efforts,
> > > > then I can live with that. :)
> > > >
> > > > Jonathan
> > > >
> > > > On 6 July 2017 at 00:31, Matt Sicker <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> The only thing I can think of that conflicts sometimes with IDEA
> > versus
> > > >> Eclipse are custom @SupressWarnings strings causing warnings in
> > Eclipse.
> > > >> The default IntelliJ warnings tend to be simple things that wouldn't
> > > cause
> > > >> an issue, however, based in my experience. It's only some of the
> > > advanced
> > > >> inspections that can get strange.
> > > >>
> > > >> On 5 July 2017 at 17:24, Jonathan Bluett-Duncan <
> > > [hidden email]>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Great! Sounds like there's general agreement on me pursuing at
> least
> > > >> some
> > > >> > of these refactorings, right?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On the subject of code style guidelines, AFAIK [lang] uses
> > Checkstyle
> > > to
> > > >> > check style adherence? So I assume that if the corresponding Maven
> > > goal
> > > >> > passes after a refactoring, then it's okay to submit it as a
> GitHub
> > > PR.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I don't expect changes suggested by IDEA to cause warnings/errors
> in
> > > >> > Eclipse or for the Eclipse Java compiler either. Is there an
> > automated
> > > >> way
> > > >> > to explicitly check for things like this through Apache's
> > > >> infrastructure?
> > > >> > Or would I need to manually download Eclipse and check on my
> > machine?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I've already created an Apache JIRA account and signed the CLA,
> but
> > > now
> > > >> > it's not clear to me what to do next. Can someone kindly advise me
> > on
> > > >> the
> > > >> > next step?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Jonathan
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On 5 July 2017 at 20:33, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > Keep in mind that not all of us use IDEA. For example, I am on
> > > >> Eclipse. I
> > > >> > > do not think this should be an issue for any of these changes
> > > thougg.
> > > >> I
> > > >> > do
> > > >> > > not expect that changes from IDEA warnings would cause the
> Eclipse
> > > >> Java
> > > >> > > compiler to issue warnings, and vice-versa.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Gary
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > On Jul 5, 2017 12:23, "Allon Mureinik" <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > I've submitted several such cleanups over the past couple of
> > > month,
> > > >> and
> > > >> > > for
> > > >> > > > the most part, they've been well received.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > I think the key here is to improve the codebase when possible
> > but
> > > to
> > > >> > > leave
> > > >> > > > room to deviate from IntelliJ's norms when there's a good
> reason
> > > to.
> > > >> > > > Perhaps annotating such places with @SuppressWarning would be
> > the
> > > >> best
> > > >> > > > approach, to signal to future developers that the warning was
> > > >> > considered,
> > > >> > > > and we explicitly decided to suppress it (possibly with a
> > comment
> > > in
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > > > code explaining why).
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 6:42 PM, Matt Sicker <[hidden email]
> >
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > I like the idea myself at least, though I'm not sure if it
> > > >> conflicts
> > > >> > > with
> > > >> > > > > any coding styleguides established.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > On 4 July 2017 at 18:18, Jonathan Bluett-Duncan <
> > > >> > > [hidden email]
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > Hi all,
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > I'm interested in going through commons-lang with IntelliJ
> > > IDEA
> > > >> and
> > > >> > > > > > applying small refactorings to make the code base easier
> to
> > > read
> > > >> > > and/or
> > > >> > > > > > more performant (and also make IntelliJ IDEA itself report
> > > less
> > > >> > > > > warnings).
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > Is this something that the [lang] team would find useful?
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > Examples of refactorings that I could apply include:
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >    - Replace manual array-to-collection copy operations
> with
> > > >> > > > > >    `Collections.addAll()`.
> > > >> > > > > >    - Replace simple `String{Buffer,Builder}` usages with
> > > direct
> > > >> > > > `String`
> > > >> > > > > >    concatenations or `String.format()`.
> > > >> > > > > >    - Simplifying boolean expressions like `obj instanceof
> > > >> CharRange
> > > >> > > ==
> > > >> > > > > >    false` to `!(obj instanceof CharRange)`.
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > >> > > > > > Jonathan
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > --
> > > >> > > > > Matt Sicker <[hidden email]>
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Matt Sicker <[hidden email]>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>



--
Matt Sicker <[hidden email]>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [lang] Applying IntelliJ IDEA refactorings

garydgregory
On Jul 9, 2017 18:49, "Matt Sicker" <[hidden email]> wrote:

I personally don't see the point of making a jira issue for it.


Agreed.

Gary


On 9 July 2017 at 20:19, Jonathan Bluett-Duncan <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Okay, thanks for the clarification Gary.
>
> Does this mean, by extension, that there's no need to create a new JIRA
> issue? In other words, would just a new GitHub PR be fine (at least for
> now)?
>
> Jonathan
>
> On 10 July 2017 at 01:32, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > I would think an ICLA is not needed if the only thing we are talking
> about
> > are clean-up style refactoring.
> >
> > Gary
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 2:27 PM, Jonathan Bluett-Duncan <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > I've re-read the contribution guidelines
> > > <https://github.com/apache/commons-lang/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md>,
> > but
> > > it's not clear to me if my changes are non-trivial enough to warrant a
> > new
> > > JIRA issue.
> > >
> > > Can someone advise me on this?
> > >
> > > Jonathan
> > >
> > > On 6 July 2017 at 00:51, Jonathan Bluett-Duncan <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Okay, I don't intend to apply any `@SuppressWarnings` during my
> > > > refactoring efforts - if IntelliJ still reports warnings after my
> > > efforts,
> > > > then I can live with that. :)
> > > >
> > > > Jonathan
> > > >
> > > > On 6 July 2017 at 00:31, Matt Sicker <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> The only thing I can think of that conflicts sometimes with IDEA
> > versus
> > > >> Eclipse are custom @SupressWarnings strings causing warnings in
> > Eclipse.
> > > >> The default IntelliJ warnings tend to be simple things that
wouldn't

> > > cause
> > > >> an issue, however, based in my experience. It's only some of the
> > > advanced
> > > >> inspections that can get strange.
> > > >>
> > > >> On 5 July 2017 at 17:24, Jonathan Bluett-Duncan <
> > > [hidden email]>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Great! Sounds like there's general agreement on me pursuing at
> least
> > > >> some
> > > >> > of these refactorings, right?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On the subject of code style guidelines, AFAIK [lang] uses
> > Checkstyle
> > > to
> > > >> > check style adherence? So I assume that if the corresponding
Maven

> > > goal
> > > >> > passes after a refactoring, then it's okay to submit it as a
> GitHub
> > > PR.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I don't expect changes suggested by IDEA to cause warnings/errors
> in
> > > >> > Eclipse or for the Eclipse Java compiler either. Is there an
> > automated
> > > >> way
> > > >> > to explicitly check for things like this through Apache's
> > > >> infrastructure?
> > > >> > Or would I need to manually download Eclipse and check on my
> > machine?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I've already created an Apache JIRA account and signed the CLA,
> but
> > > now
> > > >> > it's not clear to me what to do next. Can someone kindly advise
me

> > on
> > > >> the
> > > >> > next step?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Jonathan
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On 5 July 2017 at 20:33, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > Keep in mind that not all of us use IDEA. For example, I am on
> > > >> Eclipse. I
> > > >> > > do not think this should be an issue for any of these changes
> > > thougg.
> > > >> I
> > > >> > do
> > > >> > > not expect that changes from IDEA warnings would cause the
> Eclipse
> > > >> Java
> > > >> > > compiler to issue warnings, and vice-versa.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Gary
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > On Jul 5, 2017 12:23, "Allon Mureinik" <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > I've submitted several such cleanups over the past couple of
> > > month,
> > > >> and
> > > >> > > for
> > > >> > > > the most part, they've been well received.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > I think the key here is to improve the codebase when possible
> > but
> > > to
> > > >> > > leave
> > > >> > > > room to deviate from IntelliJ's norms when there's a good
> reason
> > > to.
> > > >> > > > Perhaps annotating such places with @SuppressWarning would be
> > the
> > > >> best
> > > >> > > > approach, to signal to future developers that the warning was
> > > >> > considered,
> > > >> > > > and we explicitly decided to suppress it (possibly with a
> > comment
> > > in
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > > > code explaining why).
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 6:42 PM, Matt Sicker <[hidden email]
> >
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > I like the idea myself at least, though I'm not sure if it
> > > >> conflicts
> > > >> > > with
> > > >> > > > > any coding styleguides established.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > On 4 July 2017 at 18:18, Jonathan Bluett-Duncan <
> > > >> > > [hidden email]
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > Hi all,
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > I'm interested in going through commons-lang with
IntelliJ
> > > IDEA
> > > >> and
> > > >> > > > > > applying small refactorings to make the code base easier
> to
> > > read
> > > >> > > and/or
> > > >> > > > > > more performant (and also make IntelliJ IDEA itself
report

> > > less
> > > >> > > > > warnings).
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > Is this something that the [lang] team would find useful?
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > Examples of refactorings that I could apply include:
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >    - Replace manual array-to-collection copy operations
> with
> > > >> > > > > >    `Collections.addAll()`.
> > > >> > > > > >    - Replace simple `String{Buffer,Builder}` usages with
> > > direct
> > > >> > > > `String`
> > > >> > > > > >    concatenations or `String.format()`.
> > > >> > > > > >    - Simplifying boolean expressions like `obj instanceof
> > > >> CharRange
> > > >> > > ==
> > > >> > > > > >    false` to `!(obj instanceof CharRange)`.
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > >> > > > > > Jonathan
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > --
> > > >> > > > > Matt Sicker <[hidden email]>
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Matt Sicker <[hidden email]>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>



--
Matt Sicker <[hidden email]>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [lang] Applying IntelliJ IDEA refactorings

Jonathan Bluett-Duncan
Thanks Matt and Gary!

I've just made a PR at https://github.com/apache/commons-lang/pull/276.

Jonathan

On 10 July 2017 at 03:47, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Jul 9, 2017 18:49, "Matt Sicker" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I personally don't see the point of making a jira issue for it.
>
>
> Agreed.
>
> Gary
>
>
> On 9 July 2017 at 20:19, Jonathan Bluett-Duncan <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Okay, thanks for the clarification Gary.
> >
> > Does this mean, by extension, that there's no need to create a new JIRA
> > issue? In other words, would just a new GitHub PR be fine (at least for
> > now)?
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> > On 10 July 2017 at 01:32, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > I would think an ICLA is not needed if the only thing we are talking
> > about
> > > are clean-up style refactoring.
> > >
> > > Gary
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 2:27 PM, Jonathan Bluett-Duncan <
> > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I've re-read the contribution guidelines
> > > > <https://github.com/apache/commons-lang/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md
> >,
> > > but
> > > > it's not clear to me if my changes are non-trivial enough to warrant
> a
> > > new
> > > > JIRA issue.
> > > >
> > > > Can someone advise me on this?
> > > >
> > > > Jonathan
> > > >
> > > > On 6 July 2017 at 00:51, Jonathan Bluett-Duncan <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Okay, I don't intend to apply any `@SuppressWarnings` during my
> > > > > refactoring efforts - if IntelliJ still reports warnings after my
> > > > efforts,
> > > > > then I can live with that. :)
> > > > >
> > > > > Jonathan
> > > > >
> > > > > On 6 July 2017 at 00:31, Matt Sicker <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> The only thing I can think of that conflicts sometimes with IDEA
> > > versus
> > > > >> Eclipse are custom @SupressWarnings strings causing warnings in
> > > Eclipse.
> > > > >> The default IntelliJ warnings tend to be simple things that
> wouldn't
> > > > cause
> > > > >> an issue, however, based in my experience. It's only some of the
> > > > advanced
> > > > >> inspections that can get strange.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On 5 July 2017 at 17:24, Jonathan Bluett-Duncan <
> > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Great! Sounds like there's general agreement on me pursuing at
> > least
> > > > >> some
> > > > >> > of these refactorings, right?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > On the subject of code style guidelines, AFAIK [lang] uses
> > > Checkstyle
> > > > to
> > > > >> > check style adherence? So I assume that if the corresponding
> Maven
> > > > goal
> > > > >> > passes after a refactoring, then it's okay to submit it as a
> > GitHub
> > > > PR.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > I don't expect changes suggested by IDEA to cause
> warnings/errors
> > in
> > > > >> > Eclipse or for the Eclipse Java compiler either. Is there an
> > > automated
> > > > >> way
> > > > >> > to explicitly check for things like this through Apache's
> > > > >> infrastructure?
> > > > >> > Or would I need to manually download Eclipse and check on my
> > > machine?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > I've already created an Apache JIRA account and signed the CLA,
> > but
> > > > now
> > > > >> > it's not clear to me what to do next. Can someone kindly advise
> me
> > > on
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > next step?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Jonathan
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > On 5 July 2017 at 20:33, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > Keep in mind that not all of us use IDEA. For example, I am on
> > > > >> Eclipse. I
> > > > >> > > do not think this should be an issue for any of these changes
> > > > thougg.
> > > > >> I
> > > > >> > do
> > > > >> > > not expect that changes from IDEA warnings would cause the
> > Eclipse
> > > > >> Java
> > > > >> > > compiler to issue warnings, and vice-versa.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Gary
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > On Jul 5, 2017 12:23, "Allon Mureinik" <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > > I've submitted several such cleanups over the past couple of
> > > > month,
> > > > >> and
> > > > >> > > for
> > > > >> > > > the most part, they've been well received.
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > I think the key here is to improve the codebase when
> possible
> > > but
> > > > to
> > > > >> > > leave
> > > > >> > > > room to deviate from IntelliJ's norms when there's a good
> > reason
> > > > to.
> > > > >> > > > Perhaps annotating such places with @SuppressWarning would
> be
> > > the
> > > > >> best
> > > > >> > > > approach, to signal to future developers that the warning
> was
> > > > >> > considered,
> > > > >> > > > and we explicitly decided to suppress it (possibly with a
> > > comment
> > > > in
> > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > > > code explaining why).
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 6:42 PM, Matt Sicker <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > I like the idea myself at least, though I'm not sure if it
> > > > >> conflicts
> > > > >> > > with
> > > > >> > > > > any coding styleguides established.
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > On 4 July 2017 at 18:18, Jonathan Bluett-Duncan <
> > > > >> > > [hidden email]
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > I'm interested in going through commons-lang with
> IntelliJ
> > > > IDEA
> > > > >> and
> > > > >> > > > > > applying small refactorings to make the code base easier
> > to
> > > > read
> > > > >> > > and/or
> > > > >> > > > > > more performant (and also make IntelliJ IDEA itself
> report
> > > > less
> > > > >> > > > > warnings).
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > Is this something that the [lang] team would find
> useful?
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > Examples of refactorings that I could apply include:
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > >    - Replace manual array-to-collection copy operations
> > with
> > > > >> > > > > >    `Collections.addAll()`.
> > > > >> > > > > >    - Replace simple `String{Buffer,Builder}` usages with
> > > > direct
> > > > >> > > > `String`
> > > > >> > > > > >    concatenations or `String.format()`.
> > > > >> > > > > >    - Simplifying boolean expressions like `obj
> instanceof
> > > > >> CharRange
> > > > >> > > ==
> > > > >> > > > > >    false` to `!(obj instanceof CharRange)`.
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > >> > > > > > Jonathan
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > --
> > > > >> > > > > Matt Sicker <[hidden email]>
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> --
> > > > >> Matt Sicker <[hidden email]>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Matt Sicker <[hidden email]>
>
Loading...