Static code analysis for Salesforce: 10 mistakes to avoid

Static code analysis equips teams with the ability to detect bugs, enforce coding standards, enhance security, and ensure optimal performance — all before a single line of code reaches production.

This guide highlights ten common static code analysis mistakes and how to avoid them, for a more efficient development process. Whether you’re a seasoned Salesforce developer or just beginning to explore static code analysis, avoiding common pitfalls can save your team time, money, and frustration.

1. Overlooking metadata types

Mistake: Teams often focus on static analysis for Apex code alone, ignoring other important areas like Visualforce, Lightning Web Components (LWC), and SOQL queries.

Impact: Orgs are typically built on large amounts of declarative metadata. If these metadata types aren’t included in static code analysis, critical issues such as inefficient queries or insecure Visualforce pages can slip through undetected, potentially causing performance bottlenecks or security risks in your Salesforce orgs.

Fix: Ensure that your static code analysis tool supports all relevant Salesforce metadata types, including low-code assets like Flows, Process Builder, and Workflow Rules.

It’s recommended to use tools purpose-built for Salesforce development. General-purpose static analysis tools may miss critical elements that Salesforce-specific tools can catch. Tools like Code reviews, powered by Clayton, offer extensive metadata coverage, making it easier to analyze all of your source code and configurations systematically.

2. Assuming warnings are false positives

Mistake: Inaccurate static analysis tools can lead to an influx of false positives — if too many false positives occur on a regular basis, the more likely developers are to assume flagged warnings during static analysis are incorrect.

Impact: Over time, valid warnings may be dismissed, leading to unchecked security vulnerabilities, unaddressed performance concerns, and code reliability issues reaching production.

Fix: Develop a strategy to manage false positives. Start by documenting recurring false positives in a whitelist and always thoroughly validate flagged issues before dismissing them. Advanced tools, including Code reviews, allow developers to manage false positives proactively while focusing on real issues.

3. Missing security vulnerabilities

Mistake: Some teams focus on syntax and formatting issues while overlooking deep-rooted security-related vulnerabilities like SOQL injection, Cross-Site Scripting (XSS), and Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF).

Impact: Overlooking security can introduce significant risks to your business, such as unauthorized access, data leaks, or compliance violations.

Fix: Enhance your static analysis process by incorporating security-focused rulesets. This can identify issues like SOQL injection and XSS vulnerabilities. Static code analysis tools specialized in Salesforce can also flag specific vulnerabilities within Apex, LWC, Visualforce pages, and third-party integrations.

4. Ignoring existing technical debt

Mistake: Many teams analyze only new code changes while ignoring existing technical debt in legacy code.

Impact: Accumulated technical debt leads to greater complexity, reduced maintainability, and increased performance bottlenecks over time.

Fix: Regularly assess your entire codebase using static analysis tools. Choosing a tool, like Code reviews, that can track technical debt and prioritize fixes for high-impact areas means you can include refactoring cycles in your development process to proactively correct technical debt over time.

5. Not customizing rulesets

Mistake: Using default static analysis rules without tailoring them to Salesforce-specific coding standards or project requirements.

Impact: Irrelevant warnings can clutter reports, and important issues might be overlooked because of the amount of noise. This can lead to inconsistent code quality across teams.

Fix: Customize your rulesets to align with Salesforce best practices and your organization’s coding guidelines. For example, add custom rules for Apex, Flows, and LWC to enforce project-specific standards.

It can also be useful to carry out team workshops to agree on coding standards and document them formally. This ensures every team member is bought into the defined rules and is more likely to apply them.

6. Missing test class analysis

Mistake: Excluding test classes from static code analysis. Test classes are crucial for ensuring code quality and avoiding regressions.

Impact: Poorly written test classes can lead to flaky tests, low code coverage, and false confidence in the quality of your entire codebase. You can also begin to accumulate technical debt in test classes.

Fix: Get the most from your static code analyzer by scanning test classes too, and ensure proper assertions, code coverage, and bulk test execution. This maintains a high level of reliability in your testing suite and ensures you’re genuinely meeting code coverage requirements.

7. Not using CI/CD integration

Mistake: Some teams rely on running static code analysis manually instead of integrating into their CI/CD pipeline.

Impact: Manual static analysis can result in reviews only being done late in the development process. This increases refactoring costs and adds delays for end users.

Fix: By automating static analysis as part of pull request validation and CI/CD deployments, teams can shift left, get early feedback, and avoid the cost and delivery delays of late defect detection.

8. Over-reliance on static analysis

Mistake: The effectiveness of static code analysis sometimes leads teams to incorrectly treat it as a complete replacement for manual code reviews.

Impact: Bugs in critical business logic and poor quality or unscalable code can slip through undetected, causing production issues or even failures.

Fix: A multi-layered approach helps teams get a more robust assessment of application health. This means complementing static analysis with manual code reviews, dynamic security scanning (DAST), and performance testing.

9. Not reviewing third-party code

Mistake: Excluding managed packages and third-party integrations from static code analysis.

Impact: One of the OWASP Top 10 vulnerabilities is using open components with known vulnerabilities. Without checking your third-party libraries, you can unintentionally compromise your Salesforce environments.

Fix: Choose tooling with rules that check open source libraries used by your environments for known security vulnerabilities and flags a violation if a match is found.

10. Disjointed development experience

Mistake: Implementing a static analysis tool that doesn’t integrate well into the existing development workflow.

Impact: The more cumbersome your tooling, the less likely developers are to use it, causing inconsistent uptake, bypassed scans, or overlooked critical information.

Fix: To encourage adoption and proper usage of your chosen static code analysis tool, ensure it integrates with your version control and CI/CD systems seamlessly, provides timely feedback, and supports automated, continuous scanning. If there’s significant overhead involved in using your static code analysis tool, the more likely it is that your team will bypass it — smooth integration helps make static analysis part of your team’s default way of working.

The value of proactive static analysis

Proactive static analysis helps build better development standards and a more secure production environment. By avoiding these common mistakes, you can improve the quality, performance, and security of your Salesforce environments.

Want to follow static code analysis best practices without the headache? With features like customizable rulesets, comprehensive metadata support, and CI/CD integration, Code reviews helps you build a robust, secure development lifecycle that delivers quality code to end users — try it for free today to achieve static code analysis best practice easily.