Fail on unnecessary exclusions?
Reported by Ashley Moran | 2009-03-08 16:18:33 UTC
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 2009-04-10 19:54:32 UTC
- 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 2009-04-10 19:54:51 UTC
- Tag set to “feature_request”
-
Kevin Rutherford 2009-04-23 19:29:51 UTC
- 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 ยป
Defects and feature requests for Reek, the Ruby code smell detector
Kevin Rutherford