Suppressed Inspections: Support Mandatory Explanation

+1, though I don't think explanation should be mandatory.
Please file a request to the tracker.

Eugene.

"Stephen Kelvin" <mail@gremlin.info> wrote in message
news:6291241.1107249218053.JavaMail.itn@is.intellij.net...

I think in general it would be a best practice to explain why an

inspection is suppressed in an additional comment.

How about having explicit support for that? After the inspection name

require additional text supposed to hold an explanation:

 if(magic) {]]>

Of course there should be an additional inspection
"Suppressed Inspection without explanation" ;)
>

Done: http://www.intellij.net/tracker/idea/viewSCR?publicId=42871

Err... what is the current status of tracker vs. Jira? Will a new tracker entry make it automatically to a jira issue?

"Stephen Kelvin" <mail@gremlin.info> wrote in message
news:8964115.1107342583294.JavaMail.itn@is.intellij.net...

Done: http://www.intellij.net/tracker/idea/viewSCR?publicId=42871

>

Err... what is the current status of tracker vs. Jira? Will a new tracker

entry make it automatically to a jira issue?

I wish I knew this also:)