Roman Ivanov
Roman Ivanov
>Avoid it unless you're willing to invest a lot of time into benchmarking. please do not do blind fix, we need to think if this is good update.
We can do more granular, with controversial validation, it is preferable. We pack easy in single PR, but complicated are ok to be in multiple PRs.
@Gaoyan1999, do not hesitate to send PRs.
@Gaoyan1999 , what is your suggestion to how to update description of this ticker to be up to date?
@Zopsss , please review
@Praveen7294 , please read https://github.com/checkstyle/contribution/tree/master/checkstyle-tester#executing-generation you can find a lot of examples in our PRs.
This means we need to exclude such files with errors from execution at all, if parser failing, no ability to run Checks. Take a look at file with list of...
Each check should be updated in separate PR, and separate issue that clearly claims malfunction by CLI.
https://checkstyle.org/google_style.html#a6.1 this paragraph is marked as not covered at all. So it is becomes weird how we can improve coverage of it. -------- We have run into limitation of Checkstyle...
I removed "approved" label to let us create new issue first and work on it. @vivek-0509 , do you think you can propose design of new Check ?