Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Added integrity checker for odd number of # #1217

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Apr 18, 2016

Conversation

oscargus
Copy link
Contributor

Will sometimes help for #1212 and #1188

@oscargus oscargus added [outdated] type: enhancement status: ready-for-review Pull Requests that are ready to be reviewed by the maintainers labels Apr 16, 2016
@@ -10,7 +11,11 @@
import net.sf.jabref.model.entry.ParsedFileField;

import java.io.File;
import java.util.*;
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think the sorting of the imports differs from #1091

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I use Eclipse, so it should behave as we want it to if nothing else... I changed it manually though.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The latest comment by @koppor in #1091 does not reflect the correct settings for Eclipse. See the comment by Simon for IntelliJ.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

OK! I didn't follow it that much, but got the impression that those were the correct settings (I use another version btw, so slightly different look).

@tobiasdiez
Copy link
Member

tobiasdiez commented Apr 17, 2016

LGTM 👍
I think we slowly approach the point where it might make sense to extract the checkers as separate classes. @simonharrer what do you think?

@simonharrer
Copy link
Contributor

Hm, yes, would make sense @tobiasdiez . I would merge this in with the current structure but for the next checker we should create separate classes.

@simonharrer
Copy link
Contributor

Go ahead an merge this in.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
[outdated] type: enhancement status: ready-for-review Pull Requests that are ready to be reviewed by the maintainers
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants