I was thinking about some quick check, which will automatically require minimum runs. Now, any committer can push changes to the master, which break not only the inspection and style, but even the compilation. If this control would be automatic, it can allow us make codebase better quite fast. But I am afraid it is not realistic.
вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 13:42, Petr Ivanov <mr.wei...@gmail.com>: > Sonar is powerful, yes, but it’s power in thoroughness. I.e. it does its > job well in cases of leisurely post-build analysis. > > I’d suggest we use it (if we will use it) in the following scenarios: > — some basic checks Sonar profile for Blocker bugs (it is fast) — > something that cannot be passed to master; > — nightly or even weekly run with Full Sonar profile (600+ checks from > Firebug, Codestyle, Coverage, etc.) for regression and overall code quality > improvement goals. > > Did not quite get you about push-to-master prohibition. Can you explain > scenario in more details? > > > > On 6 Mar 2018, at 13:27, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Petr, I've heard Sonar is powerful tool. > > > > Would it help us to prohibit commits to master w/o test run / too much > > failed tests / too much inspection errors appeared? > > > > вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 13:22, Alexey Goncharuk <alexey.goncha...@gmail.com > >: > > > >> Dmitriy, > >> > >> I like this idea a lot. For example, the inspection profile should have > >> inspection 'Anonymous class can be converted to lambda' disabled because > >> quite a lot of such classes can be sent over the network (although even > >> anonymous classes are discourage for such purposes). > >> > >> I believe we can start with sharing somehow one of the profiles and then > >> iteratively improving it until the community is satisfied with the > result. > >> > >> Thoughts? > >> > >> 2018-03-06 12:06 GMT+03:00 Petr Ivanov <mr.wei...@gmail.com>: > >> > >>> We can use Sonar as instrument for code analysis and test coverage > >>> inspections. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> On 6 Mar 2018, at 11:28, Dmitriy Govorukhin < > >>> dmitriy.govoruk...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Dmitriy, > >>>> > >>>> As I understood, preview topic was of static code analysis in general. > >>>> In this topic, I want to discuss only idea inspection rule. > >>>> In future, of course, we can expаnd this rule to the TeamCity build. > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:16 AM, Nikolay Izhikov <nizhi...@apache.org > > > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Hello, Igniters. > >>>>> > >>>>> +1 to automatic code style tools. > >>>>> > >>>>> Let's make it already! > >>>>> Do we have a ticket for it? > >>>>> > >>>>> Related discussion - > >> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble. > >>>>> com/Static-code-analysis-for-Java-td22195.html > >>>>> > >>>>> В Вт, 06/03/2018 в 08:15 +0000, Dmitry Pavlov пишет: > >>>>>> Hi Dmitriy, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I think we should resurrect thread about addition of code > >> inspections, > >>>>> and > >>>>>> later we can enable automatic control step to TeamCity. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Could you help me to find it? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 11:11, Dmitriy Govorukhin < > >>>>> dmitriy.govoruk...@gmail.com > >>>>>>> : > >>>>>>> Hi folks, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Do we have 'inspection' [1] scheme for ignite? > >>>>>>> I see a lot of warnings in my code, and I guess it is because > >> everyone > >>>>> uses > >>>>>>> different schemes. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Let's start the discussion. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> [1] IDEA inspection > >>>>>>> <https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/code-inspection.html> > >>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >
