Vladimir, I am not talking about massive/sophisticated refactoring. But I believe that ask to extract some methods should be OK to do without an extra ticket.
A checklist shouldn't be necessarily a set of certain rules but also it could include suggestion and reminders. On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 6:39 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com> wrote: > Ed, > > Refactoring is a separate task. If you would like to rework exchange future > - please do this in a ticket "Refactor exchange task", nobody would against > this. This is just a matter of creating separate ticket and separate PR. If > one have a time for refactoring, it should not be a problem for him to > spend several minutes on JIRA and GitHub. > > As far as documentation - what you describe is normal review process, when > reviewer might want to ask contributor to fix something. Checklist is a > different thing - this is a set of rules which must be followed by anyone. > I do not understand how you can define documentation in this checklist. > Same problem with logging - what is "enough"? > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Eduard Shangareev < > eduard.shangar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Igniters, > > > > I don't understand why you are so against refactoring. > > Code already smells like hell. Methods 200+ line is normal. Exchange > future > > is asking to be separated on several one. Transaction code could > understand > > few people. > > > > If we separate refactoring from development it would mean that no one > will > > do it. > > > > > > 2) Documentation. > > Everything which was asked by reviewers to clarify idea should be > reflected > > in the code. > > > > 3) Logging. > > Logging should be enough to troubleshoot the problem if someone comes to > > user-list with an issue in the code. > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 7:06 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov....@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Igniters, > > > > > > +1 to idea of checklist. > > > > > > +1 to refactoring and documenting code related to ticket in +/-20 LOC > at > > > least. > > > > > > If we start to do it as part of our regular contribution, code will be > > > better, it would became common practice and part of Apache Ignite > > > development culure. > > > > > > If we will hope we will have free time to submit separate patch someday > > and > > > have patience to complete patch-submission process, code will remain > > > undocumented and poor-readable. > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > > > пт, 20 апр. 2018 г. в 18:56, Александр Меньшиков <sharple...@gmail.com > >: > > > > > > > 4) Metrics. > > > > partially +1 > > > > > > > > It makes sense to have some minimal code coverage for new code in PR. > > > IMHO. > > > > > > > > Also, we can limit the cyclomatic complexity of the new code in PR > too. > > > > > > > > 6) Refactoring > > > > -1 > > > > > > > > I understand why people want to refactor old code. > > > > But I think refactoring should be always a separate task. > > > > And it's better to remove all refactoring from PR, if it's not the > > sense > > > of > > > > the issue. > > > > > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 16:54 GMT+03:00 Andrey Kuznetsov <stku...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > > > What about adding the following item to the checklist: when the > > change > > > > adds > > > > > new functionality, then unit tests should also be provided, if it's > > > > > technically possible? > > > > > > > > > > As for refactorings, in fact they are strongly discouraged today > for > > > some > > > > > unclear reason. Let's permit to make refactorings in the checklist > > > being > > > > > discussed. (Of cource, refactoring should relate to problem being > > > > solved.) > > > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 16:16 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com>: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ed, > > > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately some of these points are not good candidates for > the > > > > > > checklist because of these: > > > > > > - It must be clear and disallow *multiple interpretations* > > > > > > - It must be *lightweight*, otherwise Ignite development would > > > become a > > > > > > nightmare > > > > > > > > > > > > We cannot have "nice to have" points here. Checklist should > answer > > > the > > > > > > question "is ticket eligible to be merged?" > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> 1) Code style. > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> 2) Documentation > > > > > > -1, it is impossible to define what is "well-documented". A piece > > of > > > > code > > > > > > could be obvious for one contributor, and non-obvious for > another. > > In > > > > any > > > > > > case this is not a blocker for merge. Instead, during review one > > can > > > > ask > > > > > > implementer to add more docs, but it cannot be forced. > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> 3) Logging > > > > > > -1, same problem - what is "enough logging?". Enough for whom? > How > > to > > > > > > understand whether it is enough or not? > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> 4) Metrics > > > > > > -1, no clear boundaries, and decision on whether metrics are to > be > > > > added > > > > > or > > > > > > not should be performed during design phase. As before, it is > > > perfectly > > > > > > valid to ask contributor to add metrics with clear explanation > why, > > > but > > > > > > this is not part of the checklist. > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> 5) TC status > > > > > > +1, already mentioned > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> 6) Refactoring > > > > > > Strong -1. OOP is a slippery slope, there are no good and bad > > > receipts > > > > > for > > > > > > all cases, hence it cannot be used in a checklist. > > > > > > > > > > > > We can borrow useful rules from p.2, p.3 and p.4 if you provide > > clear > > > > > > definitions on how to measure them. > > > > > > > > > > > > Vladimir. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Eduard Shangareev < > > > > > > eduard.shangar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, I want to add some technical requirement. Let's discuss > > them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Code style. > > > > > > > The code needs to be formatted according to coding guidelines > > > > > > > < > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Coding+Guidelines > > > > > >. > > > > > > > The > > > > > > > code must not contain TODOs without a ticket reference. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is highly recommended to make major formatting changes in > > > existing > > > > > > code > > > > > > > as a separate commit, to make review process more practical. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Documentation. > > > > > > > Added code should be well-documented. Any methods that raise > > > > questions > > > > > > > regarding their code flow, invariants, synchronization, etc., > > must > > > be > > > > > > > documented with comprehensive javadoc. Any reviewer can request > > > that > > > > a > > > > > > > particular added method be documented. Also, it is a good > > practice > > > to > > > > > > > document old code in a 10-20 lines region around changed code. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) Logging. > > > > > > > Make sure that there are enough logging added in every category > > for > > > > > > > possible diagnostic in field. Check that logging messages are > > > > properly > > > > > > > spelled. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4) Metrics. > > > > > > > Are there any metrics that need to be exposed to user? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5) TC status. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Recheck that there are no new failing tests > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 6) Refactoring. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The code should be better than before: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - extract method from big one; > > > > > > > - do anything else to make code clearer (don't forget about > > some > > > > > > > OOP-practise, replace if-else hell with inheritance > > > > > > > - split refactoring (renaming, code format) from actual > > changes > > > by > > > > > > > separate commit > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:23 PM, Eduard Shangareev < > > > > > > > eduard.shangar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, guys. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that we should update maintainers list before > adding > > > this > > > > > > > review > > > > > > > > requirement. > > > > > > > > There should not be the situation when there is only one > > > > contributor > > > > > > who > > > > > > > > is responsible for a component. > > > > > > > > We already have issues with review speed and response time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 2:17 PM, Anton Vinogradov < > > a...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Vova, > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Everything you described sound good to me. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> I'd like to propose to create special page at AI Wiki and to > > > > > describe > > > > > > > >> checklist. > > > > > > > >> In case we'll find something should be changed/improved it > > will > > > be > > > > > > easy > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > >> update the page. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> 2018-04-20 0:53 GMT+03:00 Nikolay Izhikov < > > nizhi...@apache.org > > > >: > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Hello, Vladimir. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > Thank you for seting up this discussion. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > As we discussed, I think an important part of this check > > list > > > is > > > > > > > >> > compatibility rules. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > * What should be backward compatible? > > > > > > > >> > * How should we maintain it? > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > 3) If ticket changes public API or existing behavior, at > > > least > > > > > two > > > > > > > >> > commiters should approve the changes > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > We can learn from other open source project experience. > > > > > > > >> > Apache Kafka [1], for example, requires KIP(kafka > > improvement > > > > > > > proposal) > > > > > > > >> > for *every* major change. > > > > > > > >> > Major change definition includes public API. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/ > > > > > > > >> > Kafka+Improvement+Proposals > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > В Чт, 19/04/2018 в 23:00 +0300, Vladimir Ozerov пишет: > > > > > > > >> > > Hi Igniters, > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > It's glad to see our community becomes larger every day. > > But > > > > as > > > > > it > > > > > > > >> grows > > > > > > > >> > it > > > > > > > >> > > becomes more and more difficult to manage review and > merge > > > > > > processes > > > > > > > >> and > > > > > > > >> > > keep quality of our decisions at the proper level. More > > > > > > > contributors, > > > > > > > >> > more > > > > > > > >> > > commits, more components interlinked with each other in > > > subtle > > > > > > ways. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > I would like to propose to setup a formal review > > checklist. > > > > This > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > >> > be a > > > > > > > >> > > set of actions every reviewer needs to check before > > > approving > > > > > > merge > > > > > > > >> of a > > > > > > > >> > > certain feature. Passing the checklist would be > *necessary > > > but > > > > > not > > > > > > > >> > > sufficient* phase before commit could be added to the > main > > > > > branch. > > > > > > > The > > > > > > > >> > > checklist would help us to detect a lot of common > problems > > > > such > > > > > a > > > > > > > >> broken > > > > > > > >> > > tests or bad UX earlier, and would help contributors > lead > > > > their > > > > > > pull > > > > > > > >> > > requests to merge. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > Hallmarks of a good checklist: > > > > > > > >> > > - It must be followed be everyone without exceptions > > > > > > > >> > > - It must be clear and disallow multiple interpretations > > > > > > > >> > > - It must be lightweight, otherwise Ignite development > > would > > > > > > become > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > >> > > nightmare > > > > > > > >> > > - It must be non-blocking, i.e. inacessibility of a > single > > > > > > > contributor > > > > > > > >> > > should not block ticket progress forever. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > Please let me know if you think the idea makes sense. If > > we > > > > > agree > > > > > > on > > > > > > > >> it, > > > > > > > >> > > let's start defining action items for the checklist. My > 2 > > > > cents: > > > > > > > >> > > 1) All unit tests pass on TC without new failures > > > > > > > >> > > 2) If ticket targets specific component, it should be > > > reviewed > > > > > by > > > > > > > >> > > component's maintainer* > > > > > > > >> > > 3) If ticket changes public API or existing behavior, at > > > least > > > > > two > > > > > > > >> > > commiters should approve the changes ** > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > Vladimir. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > * TBD: Review component list and define maintainers; > > define > > > > what > > > > > > to > > > > > > > >> do if > > > > > > > >> > > maintainer is unavailable > > > > > > > >> > > ** TBD: Define what is "public API" > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > Andrey Kuznetsov. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
