[move-on-by]

I sympathize with the OP. Having said that, I’ve rolled out SonarCloud to two different companies and I would not hesitate to roll it out to a third if given the opportunity.

Initially, people always come out of the woodwork insisting that the gate requirements must be hard blockers and that we can just hand wave away the issues OP listed by tweaking the project rules. I always fight them, insisting that teams should be the owners and to gain quick adoption it should just be considered as another tool for PR reviewers. Eventually, people back off and come to accept that Sonar can be really helpful, but at the end of the day the developers should be trusted to make the right call for the situation. It’s not like we aren’t still requiring code reviews. I feel for OP, but it’s not Sonar’s fault the tool is being used for evil instead of good.

This last time I implemented SonarCloud, I took an anonymous survey to get peoples opinion. For the most part people liked the feedback Sonar provided. More junior engineers and more senior engineers liked it the most- midlevel engineers not so much. The junior liked getting quick feedback prior to asking for code reviews. The more senior engineers - who spend a lot of their time doing PR reviews - liked that it handled more of the generic stuff so that they could focus more on the business logic or other aspects of the PR. It’s just another tool in the toolbox.

[salawat]

There is no anonymous survey with the metadata available to an organization as a matter of routine. Between your OPS people, and just local onowledge, unmasking can be a trivial affair.

[cuteboy19]

their point is that a hammer shaped tool will be used to hammer. its more about what the tool defaults to doing that is the problem