I noticed sonarcloud didn't get the right  UT coverage and create PR #1662 
to fix it. https://github.com/apache/incubator-dolphinscheduler/pull/1662


And updated maven command as below 
mvn clean --batch-mode verify 
org.sonarsource.scanner.maven:sonar-maven-plugin:3.6.1.1688:sonar  
-Dsonar.host.url=https://sonarcloud.io -Dsonar.organization=${org} 
-Dsonar.projectKey=${pKey} -Dsonar.login=${token}-Dmaven.test.skip=true can be 
appended to skip tests, it will get 0% UT coverage, but will cost less time on 
local testing .


For now, Sonarcloud  just analysis Java source file. There are still need 
some work to get fronted code be analyzed. When the work is done, I will infrom 
it.


------------------ ???????? ------------------
??????:&nbsp;"nauu"<[email protected]&gt;;
????????:&nbsp;2020??1??1??(??????) ????0:04
??????:&nbsp;"[email protected]"<[email protected]&gt;;

????:&nbsp;Re: [discussion] The SonarCloud check in the CI flow



Thanks for your reply, this is normal discussion, no need to apologize.

I will try the test way in local environment , if there is any problem, i will 
continue to follow up in this mail.

However, I still feel that the method of local testing is too complicated. Such 
as UT coverage , checkstyle and spotbugs,&nbsp; If the rules are clear, these 
checks are easy to do in the IDE.

BTW, I said causeing merge to slow do not means we should not use SonarCloud. 
SonarCloud is very useful.
But If the rules are clear, and there is a way for local testing, we can get 
everything right before pull request, instead of trying.



[email protected]
zhukai/nauu ygsoft




&gt; On Dec 31, 2019, at 11:37 PM, ?????? <[email protected]&gt; wrote:
&gt; 
&gt; Sorry for your confuse 
&gt; 
&gt; 1. SonarCloud's test standards
&gt; For now , SonarCloud use the default Quality Gate analysis new code. if 
one of these conditions is true, Quality Gate will failed .
&gt; 
&gt; For SonarCloud's testing standards, You can check here :
&gt; https://sonarcloud.io/organizations/apache/quality_gates/show/9
&gt; 
&gt; More metric definitions:
&gt; https://sonarcloud.io/documentation/user-guide/metric-definitions/
&gt; 
&gt; 2.&nbsp; Test in a local development environment
&gt; Use&nbsp; maven&nbsp; command will be a easy way , there&nbsp; 2 steps:
&gt; 1) Sign up at https://sonarcloud.io/ <https://sonarcloud.io/&gt; , set up 
organization, projectKey, and token
&gt; 2) Run maven command locally , remember replace the variable as you set up 
at step 1)
&gt; mvn clean --batch-mode verify 
org.sonarsource.scanner.maven:sonar-maven-plugin:sonar 
-Dsonar.host.url=https://sonarcloud.io -Dsonar.organization=${org} 
-Dsonar.projectKey=${pKey} -Dsonar.login=${token}
&gt; Then your can browse analysis&nbsp; at SonarCloud.
&gt; 
&gt; 3. Cause merge to slow
&gt;&nbsp; Adding SonarCloud check in the CI workflow means developers need 
spend more time on code implementation&nbsp; stage ,but less on testing and 
debuging. I think it's worthy .
&gt; 
&gt; 
&gt; ------------------ Original ------------------
&gt; From: "nauu"<[email protected]&gt;;
&gt; Date: Tue, Dec 31, 2019 10:36 PM
&gt; To: "[email protected]"<[email protected]&gt;;
&gt; Subject: [discussion] The SonarCloud check in the CI flow
&gt; 
&gt; Hi :
&gt; 
&gt; I'd like to discuss the SonarCloud check in the CI flow, It makes me a 
little confused.
&gt; 
&gt; Before this, we have a very clear goal in our project:
&gt; The root issue #1460,&nbsp; It defines the overall goal and break into 
subtasks. Such as [Add unit test] #1465, It defines which unit tests should we 
write and what is the coverage ratio.
&gt; 
&gt; But now,&nbsp; SonarCloud suddenly added in without discussion in the 
community(dev maillist).It is obviously unstable,&nbsp; and causing the 
progress of the merge to slow.
&gt; 
&gt; I'm not quite sure what is the SonarCloud's testing standards, what is our 
goals, and how to test in a local development environment.
&gt; 
&gt; 
&gt; [email protected]
&gt; zhukai/nauu ygsoft
&gt; 
&gt; 
&gt; 
&gt; 
&gt;

Reply via email to