I agree with Dan and Lukasz. Developers should not be expected to know beforehand which specific profiles to run. The phase specified in the PR instructions (`verify`) should run all the relevant verifications and be the "slower" build, while a preceding lifecycle, such as `test`, should run the "faster" verifications.
Aviem. On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 7:57 PM Robert Bradshaw <rober...@google.com.invalid> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 3:49 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org> > wrote: > > I also usually prefer "mvn verify" to to the expected thing but I see > that > > quick iteration times are key. > > I see > https://maven.apache.org/guides/introduction/introduction-to-the-lifecycle.html > > verify - run any checks on results of integration tests to ensure > quality criteria are met > > Of course our integration tests are long enough that we shouldn't be > putting all of them here, but I too would expect checkstyle. > > Perhaps we could introduce a verify-fast or somesuch for fast (but > lower coverage) turnaround time. I would expect "mvn verify test" to > pass before submitting a PR, and would want to run that before asking > others to look at it. I think this should be our criteria (i.e. what > will a new but maven-savvy user run before pushing their code). > > > As long as the pre-commit hooks still check everything I'm ok with making > > the default a little more lightweight. > > The fact that our pre-commit hooks take a long time to run does change > things. Nothing more annoying than seeing that your PR failed 3 hours > later because you had some trailing whitespace... > > > On Thu, 5 Jan 2017 at 21:49 Lukasz Cwik <lc...@google.com.invalid> > wrote: > > > >> I was hoping that the default mvn verify would be the slow build and a > >> profile could be enabled that would skip checks to make things faster > for > >> regular contributors. This way a person doesn't need to have detailed > >> knowledge of all our profiles and what they do (typically mvn verify) > will > >> do the right thing most of the time. > >> > >> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Dan Halperin > <dhalp...@google.com.invalid> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 9:28 AM, Jesse Anderson <je...@smokinghand.com > > > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > @dan are you saying that mvn verify isn't doing checkstyle anymore? > >> > > >> > > >> > `mvn verify` alone should not be running checkstyle, if modules are > >> > configured correctly. > >> > > >> > > >> > > Some of > >> > > the checkstyles are still running for a few modules. Also, the > >> > contribution > >> > > docs will need to change. > >> > > >> > > >> > Yes. The PR includes discussion of these other needed changes, > >> > unfortunately one PR can't change two repositories. > >> > > >> > Please continue the discussion on the PR, then I will summarize it > back > >> > into the dev thread. > >> > > >> > Thanks, > >> > Dan > >> > > >> > > >> > > They say to run mvn verify before commits. > >> > > > >> > > On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 9:25 AM Dan Halperin > >> <dhalp...@google.com.invalid > >> > > > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > Several folks seem to have been confused after BEAM-246, where we > >> moved > >> > > the > >> > > > "slow things" into the release profile. I've started a discussion > >> with > >> > > > https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/1740 to see if there are > things > >> we > >> > > can > >> > > > do to fill these gaps. > >> > > > > >> > > > Would love folks to chime in with opinions. > >> > > > > >> > > > Dan > >> > > > > >> > > > On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Jesse Anderson < > >> je...@smokinghand.com> > >> > > > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > > @Eugene, yes that failed on the checkstyle. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 1:27 PM Eugene Kirpichov > >> > > > > <kirpic...@google.com.invalid> wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Try just -Prelease. > >> > > > > > On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 1:21 PM Jesse Anderson < > >> > je...@smokinghand.com > >> > > > > >> > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Fails because I don't have a secret key. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 1:03 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > >> > > j...@nanthrax.net > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Hi Jesse, > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Could you try the same with: > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > mvn verify -Prelease,apache-release > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > ? > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Regards > >> > > > > > > > JB > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On 01/04/2017 09:53 PM, Jesse Anderson wrote: > >> > > > > > > > > For some reason, running "mvn verify" isn't running > >> > checkstyle > >> > > on > >> > > > > > > > > everything. I had checkstyle errors in > beam-sdks-java-core > >> > that > >> > > > > > weren't > >> > > > > > > > > being found. > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > I thought this was due to the extra parameters. I reran > >> with > >> > > the > >> > > > > > plain > >> > > > > > > > "mvn > >> > > > > > > > > verify" and it still didn't find them. From the output, > it > >> > > > doesn't > >> > > > > > look > >> > > > > > > > > like they're being run at all. > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Thanks, > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Jesse > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > -- > >> > > > > > > > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > >> > > > > > > > jbono...@apache.org > >> > > > > > > > http://blog.nanthrax.net > >> > > > > > > > Talend - http://www.talend.com > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> >
