Revision as of 17:06, 4 December 2009 by Gorrus (Talk | contribs)

CND Development Process Improvements


  1. to hard to track regressions
  2. impossible to track tools compatibility


  1. automated test system



  1. Compiler warnings highlighting and other hints in the IDE (Tools/Options/Editor/Hints) must be turned on
  2. Deprecation compiler warnings must be fixed asap or filed as P2 bugs.
  3. "Unchecked" compiler warnings must be fixed asap or filed as P2 bugs. (@SuppressWarnings("unchecked") should only be used with extra comment)
  4. I18n warnings must be fixed asap or filed as P2 bugs.

Goals being solved

  1. Improve predictability
  2. Have more time to stabilize release
  3. Early catches of design flaws, error prone code and other issues
  4. Better maintainability of our code base
  5. Early discovery of regressions


idea status
Introduce IDE static checks (AS: proposal)
Code Style unification. As base we gonna use standard Java guideness. Someone volunteered to look for a tool to autocheck this.
Automated i18n checks
Ask another NetBeans groups about their "best practices" for process (VV)
CND unit tests regularly/automatically
MORE unit tests
More QA metrics and tests lovely presented in ICP
Code Reviews
Design Reviews (schedules, specifications) -- as we tried at the beginning of last cycle but not really used.
We may have sandbox with different platform configurations to run unit tests there (AS)

Proposed rules to follow

High priority

  1. we should have 0 "unevaluated" FindBugs warnings from "tracked" category (at the bottom of Incremental builds)

Medium priority

  1. follow Java Code Conventions, as soon as we have CheckStyle we should have 0 style warnings


Incremental builds

Not logged in. Log in, Register

By use of this website, you agree to the NetBeans Policies and Terms of Use. © 2012, Oracle Corporation and/or its affiliates. Sponsored by Oracle logo