I don’t want to be frank but I just did setup SonarCloud for an open-source project I am mainainer of and where I established high QA standards and lots of JUnit coverage plus integration tests.
SonarQube reported 818 with 44 blockers.
I went through the issue and could not find a single one that was not a false positive.
So I would highly question your statement “built-in Quality Profiles are a set of no-brainer, non-controversial rules that should apply to every project”.
Don’t get me wrong. SonarQube/SonarCloud is a great tool and it can help to trace down quality issues, but most rules are simply not smart enough to not produce false-positives.
That being said, I would like to follow up on your false positive claims. If you share with us additional details (which rules/issues/lines of code in particular, why do you believe it’s a false positive…), we’ll be more than happy to examine the claim and potentially address it! Users report false positives/negatives here in Community very often, and we do take it into account.
Another thing you could do is set the issue’s status “false positive” in SonarQube Cloud. Doing this is not only useful for you (for your project’s metrics and devs), but it’s also useful for us: we scrape false positives on SonarQube Cloud to spot particularly painful rules and fix them.
As you can see, there are a few ways in which your feedback can help us help you
