static-analysis

I am looking for a static analysis tool for Python, Ruby, Sql, Cobol, Perl, PL/SQL, SQL similar to find bugs and check style. I am looking for calculating the line count, identify bugs during the development, and enforcing coding standard. Perl has Perl::Critic (and perlcritic.com ) I use PyChecker and pylint as Python code checkers. However it seems that they get buggy when you use some modules (e.g., socket or pygame , IIRC). Mike Woodhouse For Ruby, you're probably best served looking at this previous SO question: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/286564/can-anyone-recommend-a-ruby-source

Are there tools out there which could automatically find copy-and-paste code among a set of files? I was thinking of writing a script for this, which would just search for equal strings, but such script would find mostly irrelevant equalities. (Such as private final static ... ). msalib Yes, try the Copy Paste Detector . http://patterninsight.com/products/cp-miner.php Related paper - http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.123.113 Our CloneDR is a tool for finding exact and near-miss blocks of code constructed by copy and paste activities. It can handle systems of millions of

Is there some tool that is able to analyze Java source files , construct a graph from it and provide the graph's data in some standard / understandable format ? It definitively does not need to have GUI, I'd prefer a command line thing so I can process the output by various tools (for segmentation, visualization,...). I'm not certain about command line tools, but I like using ObjectAid for reverse engineering into class diagrams: http://www.objectaid.com/ You can easily add any class with it's relationships to an ObjectAid graph. It saves the file in an XML format with the ucls extension. Here

Are there any code linting tools for ObjectiveC? Have a look at the LLVM/Clang Static Analyzer The LLVM/Clang static analyzer is a standalone tool that find bugs in C and Objective-C programs and it is very early in development. A static analyzer based on clang . The goal of the Clang project is to create a new C, C++, Objective C and Objective C++ front-end for the LLVM compiler. Edit Clang has now been integrated into Xcode and can easily be run as a menu option "Build & Analyse" It's worth mentioning OCLint too. It covers some things not touched by the Clang analyser, such as: Complicated

Javascript code can be tough to maintain. I am looking for tools that will help me ensure a reasonable quality level. So far I have found JsUNit , a very nice unit test framework for javascript. Tests can be run automatically from ant on any browser available. I have not found yet some javascript equivalent of PMD, checkstyle, Findbug... Do you know any static code analysis tool for javascript ? This is an old thread, but if you're interested in running Jasmine for BDD testing in your maven project, I wrote this jasmine-maven-plugin for exactly this purpose (that is, improving JS quality by

Note not "functional dependency". Are there tools available that allow me to build a static function dependency graph from source code? Something which indicates to me which functions depend on which other ones in a graphical manner. Yes, there certainly are. If you look in the Development category on Hackage, you'll find tools for: graphing package dependencies -- n.b requres older cabal graphing module dependencies graphing function calls graphing running data structures In particular, SourceGraph contains many analysis passes, including: visualizing function calls computing cyclomatic

There was a question comparing PMD and CheckStyle . However, I can't find a nice breakdown on the differences/similarities between PMD and FindBugs. I believe a key difference is that PMD works on source code, while FindBugs works on compiled bytecode files. But in terms of capabilities, should it be an either/or choice or do they complement each other? I'm using both. I think they complement each other. As you said, PMD works on source code and therefore finds problems like: violation of naming conventions, lack of curly braces, misplaced null check, long parameter list, unnecessary