Usage of static analysis tools - with Clear Case/Quest

We are in the process of defining our software development process and wanted to get some feed back from the gro开发者_开发知识库up about this topic.

Our team is spread out - US, Canada and India - and I would like to put into place some simple standard rules that all teams will apply to their code.

We make use of Clear Case/Quest and RAD

I have been looking at PMD, CPP, checkstyle and FindBugs as a start.

My thought is to just put these into ANT and have the developers run these manually. I realize doing this you have to have some trust in that each developer will do this.

The other thought is to add in some builders in to the IDE which would run a subset of the rules (keep the build process light) and then add another set (heavy) when they check in the code.

Some other ideals is to make use of something like Cruse Control and have it set up to run these static analysis tools along with the unit test when ever Clear Case/Quest is idle.

Wondering if others have done this and if it was successfully or can provide lessons learned.

We have:

• ClearCase used with Hudson for any "heavy" static analysis step
• Eclipse IDE with the tools you mentioned integrated with a smaller set of rules

Note: we haven't really managed to make replica works with our different user bases (US-Europe-Hong-Kong), and we are using CCRC instead of multi-sites.

ClearCase being mainly used in Europe, the analysis step takes place during the night there (UMT time), and use snapshot views to make sure it goes as quickly as possible (a dynamic view involves too much network traffic when accessing large files).

I'd use hudson to run static analysis on scm changes if your code base is not too large, or on periodic builds if it is.

OK, i can't resist... If you team is spread out, why in the world would you use clearcase? As someone who had to use that, when our company switched to Mercurial the team velocity improved immensely. That multi-site junk is just awful.