Qodana: Code Quality Monitoring Platform
lp.jetbrains.com
lp.jetbrains.com
At best they take a bunch of subjective preferences (come up with by some random person), assert them as gospel and teach people that they are "best practise". At worst, they will cause a team to waste time making meaningless changes and junking up their git history.
Generally if I see a project that scores an A+++ on one of these metrics, it gives me the impression that they've got their priorities rather mixed up.
It's the classic thing of "identifying real problems automatically is really extremely hard, so what we'll do is double down on the really simplistic factors (which are unfortunately meaningless)".
So as long as everyone is OK with massive muting and disabling of 98% of the issues. There is the 2% which actually helps to find bugs and improves code readability.
The problem is with making sure management don't take those things as "gospel" as you said. Sometimes they don't have a choice, I worked on projects where the client contract actually included a requirement for zero style and quality warnings (DoD).
Otherwise, totally, coding standards and so forth are just bike shedding.
Still, if people are going to enforce something as meaningless as formatting, why not at least get it right? Otherwise it's unarguably just about stroking the obsessive compulsive tendencies of the team members who are more that way inclined.
Coding standards for NASA certainly isn’t bike shedding, especially if they focus on reliability or security
Perhaps we already have (or at least nearly have) enough code, systems and services to achieve the tasks that 97.5% of us need, but they're all broken and non-interoperable in frustrating ways.
Can we spend a while honing and refining those before building incompatible replacements? Or, failing that, at least identify the core issues before repeating the same mistakes?
so long as people don't want to look at their own 'stuff', this mis-attribution in requirements will always be an issue.