Process - Out of scope issue handling with CleanAsYouGo


this is more of a general/process question.

We have an older code base where we recently introduced SonarCloud.
This has been very smooth but the we are currently discussing how we can best handle this specific scenario:
I would be very welcome over any feedback or suggestions :slight_smile:

With the CleanCode/CleanAsYouGo approach only new additions of a pull request get nagged about.
The problem comes if somebody does some changes to a line which already includes some old issue, as this will bring up the issue as “new” for their pull request and assign it to them.
Some of those fixes include multi-line or even multi-file changes which would be out of scope for the pr.

Our Approach:
Small issues which only affect the line, we fix directly.
Issues which are bigger will be marked as Accepted (previously Wont Fix) with a comment stating why.
We would then go over all Accepted issues periodically to check if they still should be considered acceptable.


  • Is this the recommended approach (as this hides issues we want to fix in the future behind the Accepted filter)?
  • According to the docs closed issues are up for deletion after 30 days. The docs also mention that Accepted issues are handled as closed. So what happens after 30 days? Will the issue re-appear as new or will it be completely discarded?
1 Like

Hi Jonas,

Welcome to the Sonar Community :wave:

changes to a line that already includes some old issue, as this will bring up the issue as “new”

Unfortunately, this is a known limitation and an open topic on our side.

Indeed, using “Accept” would be my recommendation when you’re not ready to fix an issue.

Accepted issues will soon be mentioned as such in PRs, Branch Summary, and Project Overview in SonarCloud. Which should help you to keep them under control.

Accepted issues are kept with their status and not purged, so you can rely on them for your use case. However, they are not counted as open issues in your technical debt, e.g. ratings.

Thank you for pointing out the ambiguity in the documentation, I’ll make sure we clarify it :pray:

Let me know if this helps!

Hi Gabriel,

good to know that it is a know issue and already on the roadmap for you guys :+1:.
Also thank you very much for the detailed and fast respond, it was very helpful.
For now we will be sticking with the Accept flow then. The upcoming feature of them being mentioned also sound very helpful with that approach :slight_smile:.


1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.