[sonar-dev] [VOTE] CSV Export Plugin 1.3

[Fabrice Bellingard-4]

Hi all,

I'd like to launch the vote for the CSV Export Plugin 1.3.

This version only has 1 bug fix that makes it compatible with Sonar 2.12+.

Here are all the details you'll need to help us test this upcoming release:

• Latest build of the plugin: http://s.apache.org/A6O

• Changelog: http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=11911&version=18242

• Documentation: http://docs.codehaus.org/display/SONAR/CSV+Export+Plugin

The vote is open for 72 hours.

Thanks in advance to all of you for your tests!

Best regards,

Fabrice BELLINGARD | SonarSource
http://sonarsource.com

[David Racodon-2]

Hi Fabrice,

I deeply apologize but I'm afraid that I won't give you my +1...

For this version, would it be possible to add those lines in the pom file:

<issueManagement>

  <system>JIRA</system>

  <url>http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/SONARPLUGINS/component/15450</url>

</issueManagement>

So that the header in Confluence will be properly generated.

I still get non-consistent reports (see attachment1).

This case can be explained by the fact that the unit test files can now have violations. And the unit test files are not listed in the CSV export.

Another non-consistent report I got can be explained by the fact that manual violations are taken into account in the total number of violations but not in the detailed number of violations per rule.

I think, at least, JIRA tickets should be raised against these limitations.

These limitations should also be added to the documentation.

Thanks

David RACODON | SonarSource
Senior Consultant

http://sonarsource.com

On 27 July 2012 10:54, Fabrice Bellingard <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi all,

I'd like to launch the vote for the CSV Export Plugin 1.3.

This version only has 1 bug fix that makes it compatible with Sonar 2.12+.

Here are all the details you'll need to help us test this upcoming release:

• Latest build of the plugin: http://s.apache.org/A6O

• Changelog: http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=11911&version=18242

• Documentation: http://docs.codehaus.org/display/SONAR/CSV+Export+Plugin

The vote is open for 72 hours.

Thanks in advance to all of you for your tests!

Best regards,

Fabrice BELLINGARD | SonarSource
http://sonarsource.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email

[Fabrice Bellingard-4]

On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 11:59 AM, David Racodon <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Fabrice,

I deeply apologize but I'm afraid that I won't give you my +1...

Don't be sorry for that David, this is the purpose of the testing phase :-)

 

For this version, would it be possible to add those lines in the pom file:

<issueManagement>

  <system>JIRA</system>

  <url>http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/SONARPLUGINS/component/15450</url>

</issueManagement>

So that the header in Confluence will be properly generated.

No problem, this is now done, thanks for the reminder.

 

I still get non-consistent reports (see attachment1).

This case can be explained by the fact that the unit test files can now have violations. And the unit test files are not listed in the CSV export.

Unit test files can have violations only since Sonar 3.1. So this feature will be implemented in the next version of the CSV plugin (SONARPLUGINS-2100) as it would set a too high minimum requirement on Sonar version for this release of the plugin.

However, your problem can't be related to unit test files, as the measures are recorded on the test file and not the source file that is under test. Most probably it is linked to manual violations (see below). 

 

Another non-consistent report I got can be explained by the fact that manual violations are taken into account in the total number of violations but not in the detailed number of violations per rule.

Indeed, manual violations are not reported because the plugin compatibility is Sonar 2.12 and manual violations (and manual rules) have been introduced in Sonar 2.13. However, it's probably worth increasing the minimum version of Sonar in order to add support for those manual violations in this 1.3 release. 

So I will add it in a few minutes (SONARPLUGINS-2101) and you'll have the honor to test and validate it ;-)

 

I think, at least, JIRA tickets should be raised against these limitations.

These limitations should also be added to the documentation.

Thanks

David RACODON | SonarSource
Senior Consultant

http://sonarsource.com

On 27 July 2012 10:54, Fabrice Bellingard <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi all,

I'd like to launch the vote for the CSV Export Plugin 1.3.

This version only has 1 bug fix that makes it compatible with Sonar 2.12+.

Here are all the details you'll need to help us test this upcoming release:

• Latest build of the plugin: http://s.apache.org/A6O

• Changelog: http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=11911&version=18242

• Documentation: http://docs.codehaus.org/display/SONAR/CSV+Export+Plugin

The vote is open for 72 hours.

Thanks in advance to all of you for your tests!

Best regards,

Fabrice BELLINGARD | SonarSource
http://sonarsource.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email

[Fabrice Bellingard-4]

On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Fabrice Bellingard <[hidden email]> wrote:

Another non-consistent report I got can be explained by the fact that manual violations are taken into account in the total number of violations but not in the detailed number of violations per rule.

Indeed, manual violations are not reported because the plugin compatibility is Sonar 2.12 and manual violations (and manual rules) have been introduced in Sonar 2.13. However, it's probably worth increasing the minimum version of Sonar in order to add support for those manual violations in this 1.3 release. 

So I will add it in a few minutes (SONARPLUGINS-2101) and you'll have the honor to test and validate it ;-)

And here you go David: http://s.apache.org/HlI

Thanks for your tests ! ;-)

[David Racodon-2]

Incredible! It works!

Thanks a lot Fabrice.

David RACODON | SonarSource
Senior Consultant

http://sonarsource.com

On 27 July 2012 15:29, Fabrice Bellingard <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Fabrice Bellingard <[hidden email]> wrote:

Another non-consistent report I got can be explained by the fact that manual violations are taken into account in the total number of violations but not in the detailed number of violations per rule.

Indeed, manual violations are not reported because the plugin compatibility is Sonar 2.12 and manual violations (and manual rules) have been introduced in Sonar 2.13. However, it's probably worth increasing the minimum version of Sonar in order to add support for those manual violations in this 1.3 release. 

So I will add it in a few minutes (SONARPLUGINS-2101) and you'll have the honor to test and validate it ;-)

And here you go David: http://s.apache.org/HlI

Thanks for your tests ! ;-)

[Fabrice Bellingard-4]

Great :-)

I added notes on the Wiki concerning the 2 other points.

Will I get your +1 now? ;-)

Best regards,

Fabrice BELLINGARD | SonarSource
http://sonarsource.com

On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 3:49 PM, David Racodon <[hidden email]> wrote:

Incredible! It works!

Thanks a lot Fabrice.

David RACODON | SonarSource
Senior Consultant

http://sonarsource.com

On 27 July 2012 15:29, Fabrice Bellingard <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Fabrice Bellingard <[hidden email]> wrote:

Another non-consistent report I got can be explained by the fact that manual violations are taken into account in the total number of violations but not in the detailed number of violations per rule.

Indeed, manual violations are not reported because the plugin compatibility is Sonar 2.12 and manual violations (and manual rules) have been introduced in Sonar 2.13. However, it's probably worth increasing the minimum version of Sonar in order to add support for those manual violations in this 1.3 release. 

So I will add it in a few minutes (SONARPLUGINS-2101) and you'll have the honor to test and validate it ;-)

And here you go David: http://s.apache.org/HlI

Thanks for your tests ! ;-)

[David Racodon-2]

Nope :-)

I don't agree with: "Since Sonar 3.2, test files can have violations."

David RACODON | SonarSource
Senior Consultant

http://sonarsource.com

On 27 July 2012 16:08, Fabrice Bellingard <[hidden email]> wrote:

Great :-)

I added notes on the Wiki concerning the 2 other points.

Will I get your +1 now? ;-)

Best regards,

Fabrice BELLINGARD | SonarSource
http://sonarsource.com

On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 3:49 PM, David Racodon <[hidden email]> wrote:

Incredible! It works!

Thanks a lot Fabrice.

David RACODON | SonarSource
Senior Consultant

http://sonarsource.com

On 27 July 2012 15:29, Fabrice Bellingard <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Fabrice Bellingard <[hidden email]> wrote:

Another non-consistent report I got can be explained by the fact that manual violations are taken into account in the total number of violations but not in the detailed number of violations per rule.

Indeed, manual violations are not reported because the plugin compatibility is Sonar 2.12 and manual violations (and manual rules) have been introduced in Sonar 2.13. However, it's probably worth increasing the minimum version of Sonar in order to add support for those manual violations in this 1.3 release. 

So I will add it in a few minutes (SONARPLUGINS-2101) and you'll have the honor to test and validate it ;-)

And here you go David: http://s.apache.org/HlI

Thanks for your tests ! ;-)

[Fabrice Bellingard-4]

Damn, this is just a typo.

Fixed!

Best regards,

Fabrice BELLINGARD | SonarSource
http://sonarsource.com

On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 4:13 PM, David Racodon <[hidden email]> wrote:

Nope :-)

I don't agree with: "Since Sonar 3.2, test files can have violations."

David RACODON | SonarSource
Senior Consultant

http://sonarsource.com

On 27 July 2012 16:08, Fabrice Bellingard <[hidden email]> wrote:

Great :-)

I added notes on the Wiki concerning the 2 other points.

Will I get your +1 now? ;-)

Best regards,

Fabrice BELLINGARD | SonarSource
http://sonarsource.com

On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 3:49 PM, David Racodon <[hidden email]> wrote:

Incredible! It works!

Thanks a lot Fabrice.

David RACODON | SonarSource
Senior Consultant

http://sonarsource.com

On 27 July 2012 15:29, Fabrice Bellingard <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Fabrice Bellingard <[hidden email]> wrote:

Another non-consistent report I got can be explained by the fact that manual violations are taken into account in the total number of violations but not in the detailed number of violations per rule.

Indeed, manual violations are not reported because the plugin compatibility is Sonar 2.12 and manual violations (and manual rules) have been introduced in Sonar 2.13. However, it's probably worth increasing the minimum version of Sonar in order to add support for those manual violations in this 1.3 release. 

So I will add it in a few minutes (SONARPLUGINS-2101) and you'll have the honor to test and validate it ;-)

And here you go David: http://s.apache.org/HlI

Thanks for your tests ! ;-)

[David Racodon-2]

I'm working for a company dealing with quality, so I can't let pass any quality issue :-)

I'm now proud to give you my +1.

David RACODON | SonarSource
Senior Consultant

http://sonarsource.com

On 27 July 2012 16:36, Fabrice Bellingard <[hidden email]> wrote:

Damn, this is just a typo.

Fixed!

Best regards,

Fabrice BELLINGARD | SonarSource
http://sonarsource.com

On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 4:13 PM, David Racodon <[hidden email]> wrote:

Nope :-)

I don't agree with: "Since Sonar 3.2, test files can have violations."

David RACODON | SonarSource
Senior Consultant

http://sonarsource.com

On 27 July 2012 16:08, Fabrice Bellingard <[hidden email]> wrote:

Great :-)

I added notes on the Wiki concerning the 2 other points.

Will I get your +1 now? ;-)

Best regards,

Fabrice BELLINGARD | SonarSource
http://sonarsource.com

On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 3:49 PM, David Racodon <[hidden email]> wrote:

Incredible! It works!

Thanks a lot Fabrice.

David RACODON | SonarSource
Senior Consultant

http://sonarsource.com

On 27 July 2012 15:29, Fabrice Bellingard <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Fabrice Bellingard <[hidden email]> wrote:

Another non-consistent report I got can be explained by the fact that manual violations are taken into account in the total number of violations but not in the detailed number of violations per rule.

Indeed, manual violations are not reported because the plugin compatibility is Sonar 2.12 and manual violations (and manual rules) have been introduced in Sonar 2.13. However, it's probably worth increasing the minimum version of Sonar in order to add support for those manual violations in this 1.3 release. 

So I will add it in a few minutes (SONARPLUGINS-2101) and you'll have the honor to test and validate it ;-)

And here you go David: http://s.apache.org/HlI

Thanks for your tests ! ;-)

[Simon Brandhof]

The vote has passed with lazy consensus. Thank you David for the test.
I will continue with the release.

On 27 July 2012 16:39, David Racodon <[hidden email]> wrote:

I'm working for a company dealing with quality, so I can't let pass any quality issue :-)

I'm now proud to give you my +1.

David RACODON | SonarSource
Senior Consultant

http://sonarsource.com

On 27 July 2012 16:36, Fabrice Bellingard <[hidden email]> wrote:

Damn, this is just a typo.

Fixed!

Best regards,

Fabrice BELLINGARD | SonarSource
http://sonarsource.com

On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 4:13 PM, David Racodon <[hidden email]> wrote:

Nope :-)

I don't agree with: "Since Sonar 3.2, test files can have violations."

David RACODON | SonarSource
Senior Consultant

http://sonarsource.com

On 27 July 2012 16:08, Fabrice Bellingard <[hidden email]> wrote:

Great :-)

I added notes on the Wiki concerning the 2 other points.

Will I get your +1 now? ;-)

Best regards,

Fabrice BELLINGARD | SonarSource
http://sonarsource.com

On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 3:49 PM, David Racodon <[hidden email]> wrote:

Incredible! It works!

Thanks a lot Fabrice.

David RACODON | SonarSource
Senior Consultant

http://sonarsource.com

On 27 July 2012 15:29, Fabrice Bellingard <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Fabrice Bellingard <[hidden email]> wrote:

Another non-consistent report I got can be explained by the fact that manual violations are taken into account in the total number of violations but not in the detailed number of violations per rule.

Indeed, manual violations are not reported because the plugin compatibility is Sonar 2.12 and manual violations (and manual rules) have been introduced in Sonar 2.13. However, it's probably worth increasing the minimum version of Sonar in order to add support for those manual violations in this 1.3 release. 

So I will add it in a few minutes (SONARPLUGINS-2101) and you'll have the honor to test and validate it ;-)

And here you go David: http://s.apache.org/HlI

Thanks for your tests ! ;-)

--

Simon BRANDHOF | SonarSource
http://sonarsource.com