>From what I see, it should be rather easy to get a meaningful number of
inspection failures to get something we can start working with.
Namely, we have:
Overly strong type cast (206) - mechanical work, easy to fix
Assignment replaceable with operator assignment (23) - either mechanical
work, or disable inspection
'expression.equals("literal")' rather than '"literal".equals(expression)'
(49) - mechanical work
'size() == 0' replaceable with 'isEmpty()' (67) - mechanical work
Missorted modifiers (121) - mechanical work
Redundant field initialization (76) - mechanical work or disable inspection
Unnecessary 'this' qualifier (543) - mechanical work or disable inspection
'if' statement could be replaced with conditional expression (244) -
mechanical work or disable inspection
Redundant throws declaration (100) - mechanical work or disable inspection
Redundant suppression (848) - mechanical work
Missing @Override annotation (289) - mechanical work
Property key/value delimiter doesn't match code style settings (2183) -
disable inspection
Unused Property (2180) - disable inspection
For some of the inspections we have to agree whether we enforce a
particular code style (for example, unnecessary 'this' qualifier).
After this is done, the number of failed inspections will drop dramatically
and we can start tracking changes and pay more attention to other
inspection categories.
--AG
2018-03-28 21:19 GMT+03:00 Peter Ivanov <mr.wei...@gmail.com>:
> Anton, Dmitry is right.
>
> We have to manually add condition when to consider build faulty based on
> how many failed inspection are there.
>
> For now I see this initiative as follows:
> - find more or less correct set of inspections (there are lots of typos and
> other irrelevant to code execution inspections) looking on the results of
> core module build, as it has ~85% of target code;
> - add all modules to composite project and setup schedule at least once a
> week.
>
>
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 at 19:09, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Inspection suites should be failed manually by some fail condition.
> >
> > This question will become actual in future. How to fail such suite on TC?
> >
> > ср, 28 мар. 2018 г. в 18:54, Anton Vinogradov <a...@apache.org>:
> >
> > > Peter,
> > >
> > > Why 44 errors are green?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1145974&;
> tab=buildResultsDiv&buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsAop
> > >
> > > 2018-03-28 16:27 GMT+03:00 Petr Ivanov <mr.wei...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > > After several problems, example run on Aleksey’s configuration is
> > > > complete: https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1164652
> <
> > > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1164652>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > On 28 Mar 2018, at 10:28, Petr Ivanov <mr.wei...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Started https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1164002
> <
> > > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewQueued.html?itemId=1163998> with
> > > > Aleksey’s inspections profile.
> > > > > Core (long) and AOP (short) modules will be tested as example.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >> On 27 Mar 2018, at 19:38, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov....@gmail.com
> > > <mailto:
> > > > dpavlov....@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Hi Petr,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Could you please take inspections and run it on AI code base in
> > > > >> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=
> > > >
> > IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%
> > > > 3E&tab=buildTypeStatusDiv <https://ci.ignite.apache.org/
> > > > viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore&branch_
> > > > IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E&tab=buildTypeStatusDiv>
> > > > >> ?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Sincerely,
> > > > >> Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > >>
> > > > >> вт, 27 мар. 2018 г. в 19:27, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov....@gmail.com
> >:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> Alexey, thank you for bring this topic to top.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> What do you think about committing this inspections into Ignite
> > code
> > > > base?
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> What can be our next steps after demonstrating CI check is
> possible
> > > > >>> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=
> > > >
> > IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%
> > > > 3E&tab=buildTypeStatusDiv
> > > > >>> ?
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Sincerely,
> > > > >>> Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> вт, 27 мар. 2018 г. в 15:28, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > alexey.goncha...@gmail.com
> > > > >>>> :
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> Bumping up.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Attached is my local inspections profile exported from Idea.
> Let's
> > > run
> > > > >>>> the first iteration and check if it differs significantly from
> > other
> > > > >>>> community members.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> --AG
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> 2018-03-19 16:39 GMT+03:00 Petr Ivanov <mr.wei...@gmail.com>:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> Filed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7985 <
> > > > >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7985> [1].
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> On 18 Mar 2018, at 00:56, Dmitry Pavlov <
> dpavlov....@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Hello Petr,
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Many members of the community would appreciate such additional
> > > code
> > > > >>>>> control, and it's a pity that no one made this happen. Agree?
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Could you please pick up this activity?
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> It might be an idea to create 'IDEA Inspections' step to be
> run
> > in
> > > > >>>>> parallel with 'Build Apache Ignite'. WDYT? Would it work?
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Sincerely,
> > > > >>>>>> Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> https://confluence.jetbrains.com/display/TCD10/Inspections <
> > > > >>>>> https://confluence.jetbrains.com/display/TCD10/Inspections>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> пн, 12 мар. 2018 г. в 14:37, Dmitry Pavlov <
> > dpavlov....@gmail.com
> > > > >>>>> <mailto:dpavlov....@gmail.com>>:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Hi Dmitriy,
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> would you pick up this activity?
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Sincerely,
> > > > >>>>>> Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 14:09, Dmitry Pavlov <
> dpavlov....@gmail.com
> > > > >>>>> <mailto:dpavlov....@gmail.com>>:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>> What I can suggest now it is to take XML file with existing as
> > is
> > > > from
> > > > >>>>> previous topic (I remember someone in community already
> prepared
> > > > settings)
> > > > >>>>> and set up TeamCity Run configuration as part of Run All Basic
> > > Tests
> > > > (per
> > > > >>>>> commit basis).
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> If we don’t have XML, I suggest to enable build-in Idea
> > > inspections
> > > > >>>>> 'as is' on TeamCity and iteratively improve it according to
> found
> > > > issues.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Dmitriy G., would you prepare PR and proof-of-concept TC run
> > > > >>>>> configuration?
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> As discussion became really active, I think that means
> community
> > > is
> > > > >>>>> interested in static code checks.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 14:08, Dmitry Pavlov <
> dpavlov....@gmail.com
> > > > >>>>> <mailto:dpavlov....@gmail.com>>:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>> 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
> > > > <mailto:
> > > > >>>>> 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
> > > > >>>>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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
> > > > <mailto:
> > > > >>>>> 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 <mailto:dmitriy.govorukhin@
> > > > 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 <mailto: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 <
> > > > >>>>> 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 <mailto:dmitriy.govorukhin@
> > > > 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
> > <
> > > > >>>>> https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/code-inspection.html>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
