Nick Mancuso

My thoughts on this one are as follows: If we had a check that checked `instanceof` for wrapping, we would likely update that check (I couldn't find one). But, this...

> can https://checkstyle.sourceforge.io/checks/misc/descendanttoken.html be used ? Awesome idea, @mahfouz72 let's update this issue to reflect a documentation update in DescendantToken for the yield example and to jazz up the description...

>It looks like DescendantToken doesn't have an easy way to configure depth. It will only stop nesting at a prefix count (default is basically infinity), so either we will be...

I was not able to come up with an XPath for this, but I have been thinking more about this check and believe that we should wait to see some...

> @nrmancuso , are you ok to do broad catch of 'violation' word in Input comments ? If you mean https://github.com/checkstyle/checkstyle/issues/15256#issuecomment-2231354613, yes. Ideally we match all things violation, then figure...

> > We have regex for such types of violations > > We have regex for every kind of violations messages that we use > > Yes, but look at...

I think we need to extend this issue to include a general documentation update and clarification on the vision of this check. IMO, this check has no place in in...

@mahfouz72 pleaes check with IDEA inspections, and see if they have a similar check. If so, let's explore the behavior of their check to gain some insights on how we...

I am prepared to approve this one, @mahfouz72 please update the OP to show our checks behavior with proposed message.

@joswinter I am curious, if you have a stable MatchXPath module configuration to use, why create a new check? Are there some properties you would like to add, etc?