I think we should also consider false positive ratio of the tool. Oftentimes deeper analysis easily produces tons of false positives which make people less interested in static analysis results because of triaging overheads.
On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 4:18 PM Scott Wegner <sc...@apache.org> wrote: > Discussion on software engineering practices and tools tends to gather > many opinions :) I suggest breaking this out into a doc to keep the > discussion organized. > > I appreciate that you've started with a list of requirements. I would add > a few: > > 6. Analysis results should be integrated into the code review workflow. > 7. It should also be possible to run analysis and evaluate results locally. > 8. Analysis rules and thresholds should be easily configurable. > > And some thoughts on the previous requirements: > > > 2. Tool should keep history of reports. > > Seems nice-to-have but not required. I believe the most value is viewing > the delta during code review, and also maybe a snapshot of the overall > state of master. If we want trends we could also import data into > s.apache.org/beam-community-metrics > > > 4. Tool should encorporate code coverage and static analysis reports. > (Or more if applicable) > > Is the idea to have a single tool responsible for all code analysis? We > currently have a variety of tools running in our build. It would be > challenging to find a single tool that aggregates all current (and future) > analysis, especially considering the different language ecosystems. Having > targeted tools responsible for different pieces allows us to > pick-and-choose what works best for Beam. > > > On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 3:43 PM Mikhail Gryzykhin <mig...@google.com> > wrote: > >> Let me summarize and answer main question that I see: >> 1. Seems that we do want to have some statistics on coverage and >> integrate automatic requirements into our build system. >> 2. Implementation is still to be discussed. >> >> Lets talk about implementation further. >> >> My requirements for choice are: >> 1. Tool should give us an option for deep-dive into findings. >> 2. Tool should keep history of reports. >> 3. Tool should give an option to break build (allow for hardcoded >> requirements) >> 4. Tool should encorporate code coverage and static analysis reports. (Or >> more if applicable) >> 5. Tool should support most or all languages we utilize in beam. >> >> Let me dive into SonarQube a bit first. (All up to my understanding of >> how it works.) >> Hits most of the points, potentially with some tweaks. >> This tool relies on reports generated by common tools. It also tracks >> history of builds and allows to navigate it. Multi language. I'm still >> working on figuring out how to configure it though. >> >> Common thresholds/checks that are suggested by SonarQube: >> Many checks are possible to apply to new code only. This allows not to >> fix legacy code, but keep all new additions clean and neat (ish). >> Test coverage by line/branch: Relies on cubertura report. Usually >> coverage by branch is suggested. (all "if" case lines should be tested with >> positive and negative condition result) >> Method complexity: Amount of different paths/conditions that method can >> be invoked with. Suggested max number is 15. Generally describes how easy >> it is to test/understand method. >> Bugs/vulnerabilities: Generally, output of Findbug. Reflects commonly >> vulnerable/dangerous code that might cause errors. Or just errors in code. >> I believe that sonar allows for custom code analysis as well, but that is >> not required. >> Technical debt: estimations on how much time will it take to cleanup code >> to make it shiny. Includes code duplications, commented code, not following >> naming conventions, long methods, ifs that can be inverted, public methods >> that can be private, etc. I'm not familiar with explicit list, but on my >> experience suggestions are usually relevant. >> More on metrics can be found here: >> https://docs.sonarqube.org/latest/user-guide/metric-definitions/ >> >> Suggested alternatives: >> https://scan.coverity.com/ >> This tool looks great and I'll check more on it. But it has a restriction >> to 14 or 7 builds per week (not sure how will they estimate our project). >> Also, I'm not sure if we can break pre-commit based on report from >> coverity. Looks good for generating historical data. >> >> https://docs.codecov.io/docs/browser-extension >> I'll check more on this one. Looks great to have it integrated in PRs. >> Although it requires plugin installation by each developer. I don't think >> it allows to break builds and only does coverage. Am I correct? >> >> Regards, >> --Mikhail >> >> Have feedback <http://go/migryz-feedback>? >> >> On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 2:18 PM Kenneth Knowles <k...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> It would be very useful to have line and/or branch coverage visible. >>> These are both very weak proxies for quality or reliability, so IMO strict >>> thresholds are not helpful. One thing that is super useful is to integrate >>> line coverage into code review, like this: >>> https://docs.codecov.io/docs/browser-extension. It is very easy to >>> notice major missing tests. >>> >>> We have never really used Sonarqube. It was turned on as a possibility >>> in the early days but never worked on past that point. Could be nice. I >>> suspect there's a lot to be gained by just finding very low numbers and >>> improving them. So just running Jacoco's offline HTML generation would do >>> it (also this integrates with Jenkins). I tried this the other day and >>> discovered that our gradle config is broken and does not wire tests and >>> coverage reporting together properly. Last thing: How is "technical debt" >>> measured? I'm skeptical of quantitative measures for qualitative notions. >>> >>> Kenn >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 1:58 PM Heejong Lee <heej...@google.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I don't have any experience of using SonarQube but Coverity worked well >>>> for me. Looks like it already has beam repo: >>>> https://scan.coverity.com/projects/11881 >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 1:27 PM Reuven Lax <re...@google.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> checkstyle and findbugs are already run as precommit checks, are they >>>>> not? >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 7:19 PM Mikhail Gryzykhin <mig...@google.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>>> >>>>>> In our current builds we (can) run multiple code quality checks tools >>>>>> like checkstyle, findbugs, code test coverage via cubertura. However we >>>>>> do >>>>>> not utilize many of those signals. >>>>>> >>>>>> I suggest to add requirements to code based on those tools. >>>>>> Specifically, I suggest to add pre-commit checks that will require PRs to >>>>>> conform to some quality checks. >>>>>> >>>>>> We can see good example of thresholds to add at Apache SonarQube >>>>>> provided default quality gate config >>>>>> <https://builds.apache.org/analysis/quality_gates/show/1>: >>>>>> 80% tests coverage on new code, >>>>>> 5% technical technical debt on new code, >>>>>> No bugs/Vulnerabilities added. >>>>>> >>>>>> As another part of this proposal, I want to suggest the use of >>>>>> SonarQube for tracking code statistics and as agent for enforcing code >>>>>> quality thresholds. It is Apache provided tool that has integration with >>>>>> Jenkins or Gradle via plugins. >>>>>> >>>>>> I believe some reporting to SonarQube was configured for mvn builds >>>>>> of some of Beam sub-projects, but was lost during migration to gradle. >>>>>> >>>>>> I was looking for other options, but so far found only general >>>>>> configs to gradle builds that will fail build if code coverage for >>>>>> project >>>>>> is too low. Such approach will force us to backfill tests for all >>>>>> existing >>>>>> code that can be tedious and demand learning of all legacy code that >>>>>> might >>>>>> not be part of current work. >>>>>> >>>>>> I suggest to discuss and come to conclusion on two points in this >>>>>> tread: >>>>>> 1. Do we want to add code quality checks to our pre-commit jobs and >>>>>> require them to pass before PR is merged? >>>>>> >>>>>> Suggested: Add code quality checks listed above at first, adjust them >>>>>> as we see fit in the future. >>>>>> >>>>>> 2. What tools do we want to utilize for analyzing code quality? >>>>>> >>>>>> Under discussion. Suggested: SonarQube, but will depend on >>>>>> functionality level we want to achieve. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> --Mikhail >>>>>> >>>>> > > -- > > > > > Got feedback? tinyurl.com/swegner-feedback >
