Fail on unnecessary exclusions?
Reported by Ashley Moran | March 8th, 2009 @ 04:18 PM
Say you have the following config file:
---
FeatureEnvy:
exclude:
- view
but the view method that gets analysed does not have Feature Envy. Should this be considered an error? It seems that exclusions could persist after the code smells have been removed, silently ignoring the smell being introduced.
Similar idea to code coverage failing if your coverage percentage increases on the basis that you want to maintain any improvements you make.
Possibly the sanest behaviour would be to fail if the config is in the same directory as the file affected, so that global excludes don't raise loads of errors.
WDYT?
Comments and changes to this ticket
-
Kevin Rutherford April 10th, 2009 @ 07:54 PM
- Assigned user set to “Kevin Rutherford”
So this would raise a smell warning if it is checking code that has no smells, but which would have been excluded even if it did have smells?
Yes, I can see the thinking here. Probably not high on my list though.
-
Kevin Rutherford April 10th, 2009 @ 07:54 PM
- Tag set to “feature_request”
-
Kevin Rutherford April 23rd, 2009 @ 07:29 PM
- State changed from “new” to “resolved”
Transferred to http://github.com/kevinrutherfor.../23
Please Sign in or create a free account to add a new ticket.
With your very own profile, you can contribute to projects, track your activity, watch tickets, receive and update tickets through your email and much more.
Create new ticket
Create your profile
Help contribute to this project by taking a few moments to create your personal profile. Create your profile »
Defects and feature requests for <a href="http://wiki.github.com/kevinrutherford/reek">Reek</a>, the Ruby code smell detector
Kevin Rutherford