[RSPEC-S1144] Remove unused private methods - rewrite#5739
[RSPEC-S1144] Remove unused private methods - rewrite#5739
rewrite#5739Conversation
870ef1b to
082df68
Compare
rewrite
082df68 to
6aafe05
Compare
| <exclusion>pmd-java/src/test/resources/net/sourceforge/pmd/lang/java/ast/jdkversiontests/private_method_in_inner_class_interface1.java</exclusion> | ||
| <exclusion>pmd-java/src/test/resources/net/sourceforge/pmd/lang/java/ast/jdkversiontests/private_method_in_inner_class_interface2.java</exclusion> | ||
| <exclusion>pmd-modelica/src/test/java/net/sourceforge/pmd/lang/modelica/resolver/ModelicaResolverTest.java</exclusion> | ||
| </exclusions> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
|
Warning: These recipes would make changes to pmd-java/src/test/resources/net/sourceforge/pmd/lang/java/cpd/testdata/SimpleClass.java: |
6aafe05 to
c8be946
Compare
why this one found only in CI? |
|
No regression tested rules have been changed. (comment created at 2025-05-14 19:51:35+00:00 for c8be946) |
oowekyala
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't really want to add this plugin to the build. It is inconvenient to have so many exclusions, and I would rather the build system just warn me about mistakes.
We already have a PMD check in our configuration to find unused private methods so I don't think it is adding anything to add this other check. At most it would be interesting to investigate why our rule is not reporting the couple of examples you found in #5738, and improve the rule that way.
Most will be reworked and suppression is normal part of such tools, like in PMD as well, therefor this is not valid argument to me.
yes thats clearly why there is a need. Unused method is only one of many best practises. This PR is about giving attention and then see, which recipes would help. |
|
recent discovery seems fishy -
then |
[RSPEC-S1144] Remove unused private methods -
rewriteenabler: