> the problem is that the javadoc task is not given the attention > it deserves. The failonerror is currently 'false' and the task itself > is not a part of any build and/or release processes
> I just wrote a tool that explores the distribution of keys across multiple > sstables, I needed some of the tools classes but not much more. Javadocs > would have made that easy You know what? I agree with all that. If I had to jump into the source for the JDK or other libraries every time I needed to work with them that'd be annoying. >> BTW, I have managed to fix all the javadoc errors. Of course you have. :) Industrious as usual Maxim; thanks for tackling that! So yeah. Depending on how long javadocs take to generate, I think having them as part of our pre-commit rotation makes sense. Could even add them to our site with something like an "API" section (gasp) here: https://cassandra.apache.org/doc/latest/. Would certainly help motivate us to clarify the whole "what is an external API we're committing to or not" discussions. On Thu, Aug 3, 2023, at 6:09 PM, Ekaterina Dimitrova wrote: > Thank you Maxim. There is CASSANDRA-18717, I guess that patch should go > there. Keeping the task or not, the fix of the docs should go in anyway IMHO. > I will not be available the next few days, but I can help with reviews when I > am back. > > On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 at 17:44, Maxim Muzafarov <mmu...@apache.org> wrote: >> Yes, I agree. The javadoc task should be part of our CI if we decide >> to keep it, to keep it buildable at all times. >> >> >> BTW, I have managed to fix all the javadoc errors. >> I have tested the task for both jdk11 and jdk17. >> >> Changes are here: >> https://github.com/apache/cassandra/compare/trunk...Mmuzaf:cassandra:javadoc_build >> >> On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 at 21:20, Ekaterina Dimitrova <e.dimitr...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > Thank you Maxim, >> > >> > “ >> > >> > From my point of >> > view, the problem is that the javadoc task is not given the attention >> > it deserves. The failonerror is currently 'false' and the task itself >> > is not a part of any build and/or release processes, correct me if I'm >> > wrong. >> > >> > So, >> > 1. Fix warnings/errors; >> > 2. Make the javadoc task part of the build (e.g. put it under >> > 'artifacts'), or make it part of the release process that is regularly >> > checked on the CI; >> > 3. Publish/deploy the javadoc htmls for release in the special >> > directory of the cassandra website to give them a chance of being >> > indexed;“ >> > >> > This is aligned with what I saw and the two options mentioned at the >> > beginning - if we decide to keep it we should fix things and add the task >> > to CI, if we don’t because no one wants the html pages - then better to >> > remove it this ant task. >> > On your comment about 100 errors - it seems they are more. There is a cap >> > of 100 but when you fix them, more errors appear. >> > Further discussion can be found at CASSANDRA-17687 >> > >> > On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 at 14:21, Maxim Muzafarov <mmu...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> Personally, I find javadocs quite useful, especially when htmls are >> >> indexed by search engines, which in turn increases the chances of >> >> finding the right answer faster (I have seen a lot of useful javadocs >> >> in the source code). >> >> >> >> I have done a quick build of the javadocs: >> >> >> >> [javadoc] Building index for all the packages and classes... >> >> [javadoc] Building index for all classes... >> >> [javadoc] Building index for all classes... >> >> [javadoc] 100 errors >> >> [javadoc] 100 warnings >> >> >> >> 100 errors is no big deal and can be easily fixed. From my point of >> >> view, the problem is that the javadoc task is not given the attention >> >> it deserves. The failonerror is currently 'false' and the task itself >> >> is not a part of any build and/or release processes, correct me if I'm >> >> wrong. >> >> >> >> So, >> >> 1. Fix warnings/errors; >> >> 2. Make the javadoc task part of the build (e.g. put it under >> >> 'artifacts'), or make it part of the release process that is regularly >> >> checked on the CI; >> >> 3. Publish/deploy the javadoc htmls for release in the special >> >> directory of the cassandra website to give them a chance of being >> >> indexed; >> >> >> >> On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 at 17:11, Jeremiah Jordan <jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > I don’t think anyone wants to remove the javadocs. This thread is >> >> > about removing the broken ant task which generates html files from them. >> >> > >> >> > +1 from me on removing the ant task. If someone feels the task is >> >> > useful they can always implement one that does not crash and add it >> >> > back. >> >> > >> >> > -Jeremiah >> >> > >> >> > On Aug 3, 2023 at 9:59:55 AM, "Claude Warren, Jr via dev" >> >> > <dev@cassandra.apache.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> I think that we can get more developers interested if there are >> >> >> available javadocs. While many of the core classes are not going to >> >> >> be touched by someone just starting, being able to understand what the >> >> >> external touch points are and how they interact with other bits of the >> >> >> system can be invaluable, particularly when you don't have the entire >> >> >> code base in front of you. >> >> >> >> >> >> For example, I just wrote a tool that explores the distribution of >> >> >> keys across multiple sstables, I needed some of the tools classes but >> >> >> not much more. Javadocs would have made that easy if I did not have >> >> >> the source code in front of me. >> >> >> >> >> >> I am -1 on removing the javadocs. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 4:35 AM Josh McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >>> If anything, the codebase could use a little more >> >> >>> package/class/method markup in some places >> >> >>> >> >> >>> I am impressed with how diplomatic and generous you're being here >> >> >>> Derek. :D >> >> >>> >> >> >>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2023, at 5:46 PM, Miklosovic, Stefan wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >>> That is a good idea. I would like to have Javadocs valid when going >> >> >>> through them in IDE. To enforce it, we would have to fix it first. If >> >> >>> we find a way how to validate Javadocs without actually rendering >> >> >>> them, that would be cool. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> There is a lot of legacy and rewriting of some custom-crafted >> >> >>> formatting of some comments might be quite a tedious task to do if it >> >> >>> is required to have them valid. I am in general for valid >> >> >>> documentation and even enforcing it but what to do with what is >> >> >>> already there ... >> >> >>> >> >> >>> ________________________________________ >> >> >>> From: Jacek Lewandowski <lewandowski.ja...@gmail.com> >> >> >>> Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2023 23:38 >> >> >>> To: dev@cassandra.apache.org >> >> >>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] Shall we remove ant javadoc task? >> >> >>> >> >> >>> NetApp Security WARNING: This is an external email. Do not click >> >> >>> links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know >> >> >>> the content is safe. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> With or without outputting JavaDoc to HTML, there are some errors >> >> >>> which we should maybe fix. We want to keep the documentation, but >> >> >>> there can be syntax errors which may prevent IDE generating a proper >> >> >>> preview. So, the question is - should we validate the JavaDoc >> >> >>> comments as a precommit task? Can it be done without actually >> >> >>> generating HTML output? >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Thanks, >> >> >>> Jacek >> >> >>> >> >> >>> śr., 2 sie 2023, 22:24 użytkownik Derek Chen-Becker >> >> >>> <de...@chen-becker.org<mailto:de...@chen-becker.org>> napisał: >> >> >>> Oh, whoops, I guess I'm the only one that thinks Javadoc is just the >> >> >>> tool and/or it's output (not the markup itself) :P If anything, the >> >> >>> codebase could use a little more package/class/method markup in some >> >> >>> places, so I'm definitely only in favor of getting rid of the ant >> >> >>> task. I should amend my statement to be "...I suspect most people are >> >> >>> not opening their browsers and looking at Javadoc..." :) >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Cheers, >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Derek >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2023, 1:30 PM Josh McKenzie >> >> >>> <jmcken...@apache.org<mailto:jmcken...@apache.org>> wrote: >> >> >>> most people are not looking at Javadoc when working on the codebase. >> >> >>> I definitely use it extensively inside the IDE. But never as a >> >> >>> compiled set of external docs. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Which is to say, I'm +1 on removing the target and I'd ask everyone >> >> >>> to keep javadoccing your classes and methods where things are >> >> >>> non-obvious or there's a logical coupling with something else in the >> >> >>> system. :) >> >> >>> >> >> >>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2023, at 2:08 PM, Derek Chen-Becker wrote: >> >> >>> +1. If a need comes up for Javadoc we can fix it at that point, but I >> >> >>> suspect most people are not looking at Javadoc when working on the >> >> >>> codebase. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Cheers, >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Derek >> >> >>> >> >> >>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 11:11 AM Brandon Williams >> >> >>> <dri...@gmail.com<mailto:dri...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> >>> I don't think even if it works anyone is going to use the output, so >> >> >>> I'm good with removal. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Kind Regards, >> >> >>> Brandon >> >> >>> >> >> >>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 11:50 AM Ekaterina Dimitrova >> >> >>> <e.dimitr...@gmail.com<mailto:e.dimitr...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > Hi everyone, >> >> >>> > We were looking into a user report around our ant javadoc task >> >> >>> > recently. >> >> >>> > That made us realize it is not run in CI; it finishes successfully >> >> >>> > even if there are hundreds of errors, some potentially breaking doc >> >> >>> > pages. >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > There was a ticket discussion where a few community members >> >> >>> > mentioned that this task was probably unnecessary. Can we remove >> >> >>> > it, or shall we fix it? >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > Best regards, >> >> >>> > Ekaterina >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> -- >> >> >>> +---------------------------------------------------------------+ >> >> >>> | Derek Chen-Becker | >> >> >>> | GPG Key available at >> >> >>> https://keybase.io/dchenbecker<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fkeybase.io%2Fdchenbecker&data=05%7C01%7CStefan.Miklosovic%40netapp.com%7C7ca04f0f58764996ab1e08db93a0de2a%7C4b0911a0929b4715944bc03745165b3a%7C0%7C0%7C638266091373361824%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=n%2BrDfikzzoQG%2Fg%2BRvNqEEE6vHP8ZmY1skeosesLK9v0%3D&reserved=0> >> >> >>> and | >> >> >>> | >> >> >>> https://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?search=derek%40chen-becker.org<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpgp.mit.edu%2Fpks%2Flookup%3Fsearch%3Dderek%2540chen-becker.org&data=05%7C01%7CStefan.Miklosovic%40netapp.com%7C7ca04f0f58764996ab1e08db93a0de2a%7C4b0911a0929b4715944bc03745165b3a%7C0%7C0%7C638266091373518054%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Tnu5cIoIFZGqhaqOjCjW8yK%2BDTT2%2B0ifvFNs1pJO93s%3D&reserved=0> >> >> >>> | >> >> >>> | Fngrprnt: EB8A 6480 F0A3 C8EB C1E7 7F42 AFC5 AFEE 96E4 6ACC | >> >> >>> +---------------------------------------------------------------+ >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>>
