Automated QA vs. Manual QA

Objective
Compare the results of Checkstyle, PMD and FindBugs to the Manual QA that is written by a classmate on the CodeRuler Project.

Automated QA vs. Manual QA
I got 644 errors with Checkstyle tools on my CodeRuler Project. Most of Errors occured because the original source files contain tap characters, which is not supposed to use when we coding. There were also few errors for the documantation because I did not make few comments for the Javadoc. I also did not used {}s for if statements and Checkstyle reported errors on this, too. PMD tools also reported on the same problem of my code that I did not used curly braces for if statements. On the other hands, there were no erros reported with FindBugs QA target.
I learned that I had many problems with correct coding style from Manual QA, too.

Conclusion
Automated QA is good for reporting more specific and detail information about the errors that the source code has, however, it takes time to write and edit ".xml" files for build and other tools. On the other hand, Manual QA is good for checking the flow of the logic in the source program. In conclusion, I believe we can always use both Automated QA and Manual QA for better programming.