If you are "the development manager in charge", I am surprised that spending half a day, as you told, chasing this bug was your responsibility. But then again, I know nothing about your company. If this really was your coworkers code, I guess he should have looked at the warning pertaining to his code. If you think that "This is a big system, so neither I as the development manager in charge, nor the developers responsible for a specific module, need to read the warnings - we'll rather complain in network forums about how nasty such bugs are", then I think you got what you deserved. I have been working on big systems, and I have been responsible for the processing of warnings and errors, suppressing those that are considered 'noise', reporting the significant ones to the developer. I would never, ever, have classified 'Unexpected empty statement' as insignificant noise. I am not familiar with SonarCloud/SonarSource (I just checked the Wikipedia article; that is my first encounter with them). If this system is not capable of drawing your attention to unexpected empty statements, but let it drown in 'a lot of warning generated from the environment, not necessarily a bad code', then I would consider other tools. I have been working with Coverity; it looks to me as if SonarSource is in the same business. With Coverity, you can indicate for almost any warning that 'This is noise - don't bother me with it'. But you are explicitly presented with every issue at least once, until you say 'Don't bother me with that issue any more'. You may also tell Coverity: "Never bother me with such silly details as unexpected empty statements - they're probably perfectly fine, good code!" In either case: You asked for it. You got it. Your story does not suggest that SonarSource is a viable alternative to Coverity.
