Hello Many of my customers want to define their own quality gate. From my point of view, there is no single quality gate that fits all companies, it is common to adapt the quality gate according to the company’s strategy. That’s why I think SonarQube offers the possibility to define a quality gate,…

Hi Vivek, I mirror the concerns from Arnoud. I find it also a bad customer experience to make this not optional. We have a lot of teams how are still on the journey to Code Quality and it not helpful for them to get directly the sledgehammer of thinks they have to take care of. In addition you shou…

Hello I have also received many feedbacks from our teams after the upgrade with this warning. The worst part in my opinion is that we have already conditions on new code but instead of ratio we have decided to use the absolute numbers. Both have pros and cons but now I have to add useless conditio…

To add to the comments here, I think what Sonar has done with this is a terrible idea. It is one thing to recommend your world view of “clean as you code” but it is another to force it on your customers - as one of the posters here put it “we find the new warnings particularly visually polluting an…

Thanks Christian, Nicolas and Tony for the feedback.

@vivek.reghunath Is there any concrete plan to make the warning dismissible? Please share timeline ASAP. I second the voices above. Opinionated views are fine, but the only people who know the requirements of my company are the people within my company.

We too are experiencing frustration with the SonarQube UI essentially providing a constant reminder that we the customer is wrong. Do you have a timeline for making this dismissable?

We now also have updated to the new LTS Version and people are getting whammed with these new warnings. It’s ok if you have a specific quality requirements for yourself, but forcing those on anyone else is a no go in my opinion since every customer has different quality requirements. In our example …

Quoting from the documentation page : The first four conditions are locked and cannot be edited if you wish to remain compliant with CaYC. The duplication and coverage conditions are configurable to your specifications. Hope this helps.

Not really, a help would be a rollback of these restrictions. Like I said before, the people who define our quality gates for the company would consider using 1 of the 6 defined CaYC conditions.

For my opinion, this basically amounts to SonarSource saying they know what’s best for everyone, regardless of their own experiences and knowledge. There ARE times when one wants to scan the entire codebase for whatever reasons. The point is not are they valid reasons or not. The point is that Sonar…

Be able to add/remove conditions to the quality gate without warning

Suggest new features

felipebz (Felipe Zorzo) October 4, 2023, 9:50am 43

This doesn’t seem to be the case considering that the option to configure the severity of the rules was removed, forcing us to accept whatever Sonar decided… SQ 10.2 turn off rule severity is a breaking change

Topic		Replies	Views
Quality Gate + Short Lived Branches SonarQube Server / Community Build sonarqube , branches , q_gate	27	11588	August 7, 2019
Approach to incrementally improve quality by Quality Gate on PR branches SonarQube Cloud cfamily , coverage , quality-gate	7	300	July 3, 2024
Ratcheting Quality Gate conditions: Fail Quality Gate if coverage decreases from last analysis Suggest new features fix_the_leak , coverage , gate	27	5392	March 9, 2026
Why can't we add conditions to Quality Gates!? SonarQube Server / Community Build sonarqube	4	354	February 13, 2024
SonarQube - Mandatory and Optional Quality Gate on same code without running scanner twice SonarQube Server / Community Build sonarqube , coverage , dotnet , quality-gate , pipeline	2	915	June 7, 2022

Be able to add/remove conditions to the quality gate without warning

Related topics