Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add basic checkstyle configuration #10

Open
gunnarmorling opened this issue Nov 14, 2021 · 4 comments
Open

Add basic checkstyle configuration #10

gunnarmorling opened this issue Nov 14, 2021 · 4 comments

Comments

@gunnarmorling
Copy link
Member

Might also require the corresponding Eclipse M2E configuration.

@quintesse
Copy link

Why CheckStyle and not some other tool like eg Spotless?

I haven't done any comparison of comparable tools out there, but in my (very limited) experience with Spotless I really appreciate that it can "clean up" the code automatically according to the selected style. That way I'm not obliged to use an IDE or set my IDE formatting to the exact same style used by the project, etc. I can just run mvn spotless:apply.

It seems that would be a very useful feature for an opinionated archetype :-)

@gunnarmorling
Copy link
Member Author

Hey @quintesse, that's a great point! I had suggested Checkstyle mainly because it's the one tool in that category I'm familiar with the most, but absolutely agreed that having symmetry between validating and applying configuration is very desirable. If Spotless does offer that and generally is in the same ballpark in terms of capabilities as Checkstyle, I'm all for it.

@gunnarmorling
Copy link
Member Author

Hey @Naros, Tako's comment reminded me of that discussion we recently had on consitent member ordering. Perhaps Spotless would support that?

@Naros
Copy link

Naros commented Jan 27, 2022

Hi @gunnarmorling sorry for the late reply; this ended up in my personal inbox :)

It's certainly possible and I'll check it out. Honestly, if Spotless can adhere to our current format standards and give us the auto-formatting functionality we already get from the other plugins; then I'd be all for having 1 plug-in do it all rather than relying on 3 plug-ins.

I'll give it a look over the next few days and let you know.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants