Mark static code analysis checks deprecated

[guwirth]

• Static code analysis checks will no longer be supported in future versions. Use an external tool for static code analysis instead.

---

This change is 

[ivangalkin]

@guwirth As far I remember the #1410 was discussed controversially. Does your change make the first step towards the removal?

[ivangalkin]

Reviewed 54 of 54 files at r1.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @guwirth, @jmecosta, and @Bertk)

---

sonar-c-plugin/src/main/resources/org/sonar/l10n/c/rules/c/BooleanEqualityComparison.html, line 5 at r1 (raw file):

Static code analysis checks will no longer be supported in future versions. Use an external tool for static code analysis instead.

I believe this statement might be misunderstood like "don't use sonar-cxx, replace it with something else". I would write something like

Internal static code analysis checks will no longer be supported in future versions. Sonar-cxx is able to import analysis reports from various external tools (see https://github.com/SonarOpenCommunity/sonar-cxx/wiki/Running-tools). Please consider using external code analyzers instead of deprecated internal ones.

[guwirth]

As far I remember the #1410 was discussed controversially. Does your change make the first step towards the removal?

@ivangalkin think all agreed there

• That it makes less sense to add more static code analysis checks.
• That it is not consistent (and for most user confusing) if we provide a little bit code analysis.

Mark them DEPRECATED seems to be a good compromise to motivate all to switch to external rule checkers.

[guwirth]

As far I remember the #1410 was discussed controversially. Does your change make the first step towards the removal?

@ivangalkin think all agreed there

• That it makes less sense to add more static code analysis checks.
• That it is not consistent (and for most user confusing) if we provide a little bit code analysis.

Mark them DEPRECATED seems to be a good compromise to motivate all to switch to external rule checkers.

[ivangalkin]

@guwirth ok, I agree. Please consider to re-word the documentation (see my comment above). Besides that I approve the PR.

[ivangalkin]

Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @guwirth, @jmecosta, and @Bertk)

[ivangalkin]

@guwirth improve html

thank you

[jmecosta]

all good from my side.