While running an analysis, SonarQube raises an issue every time a piece of code breaks a coding rule. The set of coding rules is defined through the quality profile associated with the project.
Each issue has one of five severities:
Bug with a high probability to impact the behavior of the application in production: memory leak, unclosed JDBC connection, .... The code MUST be immediately fixed.
Either a bug with a low probability to impact the behavior of the application in production or an issue which represents a security flaw: empty catch block, SQL injection, ... The code MUST be immediately reviewed.
Quality flaw which can highly impact the developer productivity: uncovered piece of code, duplicated blocks, unused parameters, ...
Quality flaw which can slightly impact the developer productivity: lines should not be too long, "switch" statements should have at least 3 cases, ...
Neither a bug nor a quality flaw, just a finding.
Ideally, the team wouldn't introduce any new issues (any new technical debt). SonarLint for Eclipse, SonarLint for IntelliJ, and SonarLint for VisualStudio can help developers because they provide the ability to perform local analyses to check their code before pushing it back to the SCM. But in real life, it's not always possible to code without any new technical debt, and sometimes it's not worth it.
So new issues get introduced.
Understanding issue context
Sometimes, issues are self-evident once they're pointed out. For instance, if your team has agreed to a init-lower, camelCase variable naming convention, and an issue is raised on My_variable, you don't need a lot of context to understand the problem. But in other situations context may be essential to understanding why an issue was raised. That's why SonarQube supports not just the primary issue location, where the issue message is shown, but also secondary issue locations. For instance, secondary issues locations are used to mark the pieces of code in a method which add Cognitive Complexity to a method.
But there are times when a simple laundry list of contributing locations isn't enough to understand an issue. For instance, when a null pointer can be dereferenced on some paths through the code, what you really need are issue flows. Each flow is a set of secondary locations ordered to show the exact path through the code on which a problem can happen. And because there can be multiple paths through the code on which, for instance a resource is not released, SonarQube supports multiple flows.
SonarQube's issues workflow can help you manage your issues. There are seven different things you can do to an issue (other than fixing it in the code!): Comment, Assign, Confirm, Change Severity, Resolve, Won't Fix, and False Positive.
These actions break out into three different categories. First up is the "technical review" category.
Confirm, False Positive, Won't Fix, Change Severity, and Resolve fall into this category, which presumes an initial review of an issue to verify its validity. Assume it's time to review the technical debt added in the last review period - whether that's a day, a week, or an entire sprint. You go through each new issue and do one:
Confirm - By confirming an issue, you're basically saying "Yep, that's a problem." Doing so moves it out of "Open" status to "Confirmed".
False Positive - Looking at the issue in context, you realize that for whatever reason, this issue isn't actually an
issue, erm... "problem." It's not actually a problem. So you mark it False Positive and move on. Requires Administer Issues permission on the project.
Won't Fix - Looking at the issue in context, you realize that while it's a valid issue it's not one that actually needs fixing. In other words, it represents accepted technical debt. So you mark it Won't Fix and move on. Requires Administer Issues permission on the project.
Change Severity - This is the middle ground between the first two options. Yes, it's a problem, but it's not as bad a problem as the rule's default severity makes it out to be. Or perhaps it's actually far worse. Either way, you adjust the severity of the issue to bring it in line with what you feel it deserves. The marker in the drilldown will change to show the new severity immediately, but the change won't be reflected in your issue counts until after the next analysis. Requires Administer Issues permission on the project.
Resolve - If you think you've fixed an open issue, you can Resolve it. If you're right, the next analysis will move it to closed status. If you're wrong, its status will go to re-opened.
If you tend to mark a lot of issues false positive or won't fix, it means that some coding rules are not appropriate for your context. So, you can either completely deactivate them in the quality profile or use issue exclusions to narrow the focus of the rules so they are not used on specific parts (or types of object) of your application. Similarly, making a lot of severity changes should prompt you to consider updating the rule severities in your profiles.
Once issues have been through technical review, it's time to decide who's going to deal them. By default they're assigned to the last committer on the issue line (at the time the issue is raised), but you can certainly reassign them to yourself or someone else. The assignee will receive email notification of the assignment if he signed up for notifications, and the assignment will show up everywhere the issue is displayed, including in the My Issues list in the My Account space.
At any time during the lifecycle of an issue, you can log a comment on it. Comments are displayed in the issue detail in a running log. You have the ability to edit or delete the comments you made.
All of these changes and more can be made to multiple issues at once using the Bulk Change option in the issues search results pane.
Issues come from rules and rules are collected in profiles. Only certain users can edit profiles, but every user can view them.