Nick Mancuso

> @nrmancuso so should I open a new issue for the discussion about adding constructor support for `OverloadMethodsDeclarationOrder`, I will link my PR to that issue and when that PR...

Let’s edit this issue description to just have the premise that the Google style guide says that constructors should be ordered as such, but google_checks.xml shows no violations for this...

Reassigning back to @rnveach so that we can get doubts at https://github.com/checkstyle/checkstyle/pull/14181#pullrequestreview-1798340029 addressed before proceeding. Even if we might relax pitest procedure a bit for certain areas of the project,...

We have lost contact with author, anyone is welcome to reuse changes here to close the issue.

I really like this idea. >If new tokens are added, they will be easily missed in existing configurations. Imagine you are on Java 11 and now moving to Java 17...

Github, generate site

If we haven't required this capability yet, I would think it is safe to assume that we won't in the future. Can we just throw some descriptive exception if an...

>The method accepts an array as an input argument, technically, we should change that, too For a test method, I don't see any issue with just throwing an exception here....

Looks like we do support this, somehow: ``` [ERROR] Errors: [ERROR] XpathRegressionAvoidNestedBlocksTest.testSwitchAllowInSwitchCaseFalse:113->AbstractXpathTestSupport.runVerifications:204 » IllegalArgument Expected violations should contain only one element. Multiple violations are not supported. [ERROR] XpathRegressionAvoidNestedBlocksTest.testSwitchAllowInSwitchCaseTrue:144->AbstractXpathTestSupport.runVerifications:204 » IllegalArgument...

@TanayMorakhia awesome investigation, thanks for this. @Vyom-Yadav @TanayMorakhia can you come to with some high level design of how we would add “true” support for multiple violations and outline the...