rnveach
rnveach
> Our dtd should not allow unexpected elements, dtd/schema should be strict. @romani Look at config's DTD and my comment. DTD in example here is a custom DTD, not one...
@romani This is steming from a PR where we don't throw exception on unknown element. Configuration loader does throw an exception on an unknown element. They want to sink the...
@romani So this issue is approved to enforce only our DTDs be allowed?
Approved label is needed. I think all our XML loaders need to enforce our own DTDs. So `ConfigurationLoader` will have to change as well.
I would prefer a round number like 200. Configuration javadoc, package, imports, class definitions, and the necessary blank lines add up.
> ... we might need to change execution script of checkstyle-tester to get this version itself based on what main repo has currently It already does this. https://github.com/checkstyle/contribution/blob/master/checkstyle-tester/diff.groovy#L632 https://github.com/checkstyle/contribution/blob/b0293f4f4082efc28080725c6b22766557985fc2/checkstyle-tester/diff.groovy#L223 Because...
PR was abandoned, anyone is free to take this up. Last commit was https://github.com/checkstyle/checkstyle/commit/6962a60fe3e1bc559e6ea4bedd47c529e78d1b2c.patch which was very close to being approved. Remaining discussions at the bottom of https://github.com/checkstyle/checkstyle/pull/9766 .
If you are continuing from previous PR, discussions of changes I thought should be added were at https://github.com/checkstyle/checkstyle/pull/9766#pullrequestreview-660570823 . If a new PR is being started from scratch, then I...
This PR is completely disconnected. User deleted their CS fork. Patched code can still be downloaded from https://patch-diff.githubusercontent.com/raw/checkstyle/checkstyle/pull/11577.patch .
Regression never caught this?