infer VS Checkstyle

I think most development occurs on problems that can't be formally modeled anyway. Most developers work on things like, "can you add this feature to the e-commerce site? And can the pop-up be blue?" which isn't really model-able.

But that's not to say that formal methods are useless! We can still prove some interesting aspects of programs -- for example, that every lock that gets acquired later gets released. I think tools like Infer[0] could become common in the coming years.

[0]: https://fbinfer.com/

Using infer, someone else exploited null-dereference checks to introduce simple affine types in C++. Cppcheck also checks for null-dereferences. Unfortunately, that approach means that borrow-counting references have a larger sizeof than non-borrow counting references, so optimizing the count away potentially changes the semantics of a program which introduces a whole new way of writing subtly wrong code.

Meta/Facebook are long time OCaml users, their logo is on the OCaml website. Their static analysis tool and its predecessor are both written in OCaml.

Then this idea that the US government will tell tech companies how to write secure software. Let's get this straight, the private sector, especially big tech is miles ahead of US government in this regard. Microsoft literally invented threat modelling and modern exploit mitigations. Facebook has the best appsec processes pretty much in the whole world, including their own cutting edge code analyzer. AWS uses formal verification everywhere. Meanwhile the US government itself runs mission-critical systems that's almost literally held together by bubble gum and toothpicks. Maybe they could dial down the arrogance a tad, get their own shit together, learn how this cyber stuff is actually done and only then try lecturing everyone else.

Efforts: Dependabot, CodeQL, Coverity, facebook's Infer tool, etc

I notice there isn't fbinfer. It's pretty cool, and is used for this library.

"Move fast, break stuff" is a great approach when you aren't pushing the broken bits to production. Fuck, even Facebook, the big "move fast, break stuff" company, uses tools to detect errors in its continuous integration toolchain. https://fbinfer.com/

TBH, there's a non-zero amount of non-"ivory tower" tools you may have used that are written in functional languages. Say, Pandoc or Shellcheck are written in Haskell; Infer and Flow are written in OCaml. RabbitMQ and Whatsapp are implemented in Erlang (FB Messenger was too, originally; they switched to the C++ servers later). Twitter backend is (or was, at least) written in Scala.

We had a list of suggested code formation tools, as my code was written in Java I decided to use suggested formatter GoogleJavaFormat. However, I didn't decide to pick suggested tool for Linter. I picked Checkstyle; for the reason, that SpotBugs wasn't available for JDK 22.

Linting and Code Static Analysis: Stripe implements strict linting and code static analysis to maintain high code quality. Tools like Checkstyle for Java can be integrated into your CI pipeline to catch potential issues before they reach production.

I'm trying to use Google's checkstyle. I want certain things to be an error, such as using Tabs for indentation. When I run mvn checkstyle:check with a file with a tab in the first column, it always gives a [WARN] rather than the error that I've asked for. Pom snippet: org.apache.maven.plugins maven-surefire-plugin ${maven-surefire-plugin.version} ${maven-surefire-plugin.skipUnitTests} org.apache.maven.plugins maven-checkstyle-plugin 3.1.2 checkstyle validate check google_checks.xml UTF-8 true true warning true I'm using google_checks.xml as from https://github.com/checkstyle/checkstyle/blob/master/src/main/resources/google_checks.xml. I have changed the severity for the FileTabCharacter to "error"

1. Conflicts between Spotless and Checkstyle Checkstyle is a tool for checking Java source code for compliance with code standards or a set of validation rules (best practices).

Never had anything like that though for four years my life revolved around getting PMD, checkstyle and Sonar rules to pass so my pull request would merge.

PMD, and checkstyle as well.

I’m a little out of date with Java, but I believe Checkstyle is currently popular: https://github.com/checkstyle/checkstyle

Another example can be applied to code quality itself. Most static analyzers are configurable. If you tried to set Checkstyle Google configuration to the mature project, you would probably get hundreds or even thousands of errors. You can start with just one rule. Ar first glance, it seems not so important. But after the moment when the configuration reaches the repository, you can be sure that no one else can violate this rule in the future.