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

Implement a "confidence score" on each thing Elvis finds #138

Closed
HernanRivasAcosta opened this issue Oct 3, 2014 · 1 comment
Closed

Comments

@HernanRivasAcosta
Copy link
Member

The idea of a confidence score is giving a value (say, between 0 and 100) indicating how confident Elvis is that this should be looked into, where lower confidence means it's either a suggestion or that Elvis is not sure that this rule actually applies.

For a basic example, say we have the line size set to 80, having a line with 81 characters could have a confidence score of 70, while a line of 130 characters has a score of 100. The configuration file should also include the minimum value required to show a comment made by Elvis Server. Of course, this applies to all kinds of rules, if you disallow macros, a macro used only once has a confidence of 100 while a macro you used dozens of times could have a value of 90.

Pros: More informative, more natural way of handling suggestions, reduced chance of false positives.
Cons: The documentation for each rule would have to clearly describe what confidence values are to be expected and under what circumstances.

@jfacorro
Copy link
Contributor

Even though this sounds like a nice idea, there is no confidence to be defined for some rules, it's either 0% or 100%.

I'm closing this issue for now, since there has been no work associated to it for 5 years.

Please feel free to re-open it by providing more information on how confidence should be calculated for each existing rule, so that someone can just implement the issue.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants