Roman Ivanov

@rdiachenko , @Vyom-Yadav , looks like we should not remove this code and it is not a nano performance optimization. is there any ideas how to wrap suppression in any...

> but that defeats the purpose of fine-grained suppressions. goal of project to minimize as possible usage of fine-grained supprressions. Reason is is that if contributor see a way to...

> if (!name.contains(PACKAGE_SEPARATOR)) I thinks we can sacrifice this performance, load of modules happens only ones per whole execution, so it is very nano optimization. Users almost never use full...

> if (thirdPartyNameToFullModuleNames == null) { this one is big performance improvement, as generateThirdPartyNameToFullModuleName is heavy operation https://github.com/checkstyle/checkstyle/blob/678c547af6de156c604595fe42ffdd0cb05c0023/src/main/java/com/puppycrawl/tools/checkstyle/PackageObjectFactory.java#L304-L307 as it goes to class loading to search in all classes that...

@rdiachenko , @Vyom-Yadav , please share your opinion.

For another case, It sounded like performance improvement, so test will not help to kill pitest

we merged all changes. in https://github.com/checkstyle/checkstyle/blob/master/config/pitest-suppressions/pitest-common-suppressions.xml there is no RemoveConditionalMutator_EQUAL_IF

Sorry that issue lost from my attention for more than year. I am ok to approve issue with new property `ignoreAnnotatedBy`. @nrmancuso , pre-approved at https://github.com/checkstyle/checkstyle/issues/11340#issuecomment-1062967967 @rnveach , please share...

> if the property will use the FQCP for the annotation, yes > why go through this trouble when xpath suppression can do the same thing. xpath is very complicated...

``` ``` sounds like ignore parameter that is annotated by, not a method. But check is actually targeting method, so it is not confusion. ~Sounds like we have to come...