Maxim, Thanks, I'll check PR and let you know about results.
For now, Inspections task execution time looks much better (15-22 min), but fluctuation is still noticeable. On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 11:13 AM Maxim Muzafarov <maxmu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Andrey, > > Thanks! I've consulted with the IntelliJ IDEA source code and found > how this disabled plugins file should look like. I've created a new > issue [1] and prepared PR [2] with the set of disabled plugins (maybe > not complete set). I don't have access to change corresponding > `~Excluded [Inspections] Core Debug` test suite properties. > Can we test this PR? > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10682 > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5666 > On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 at 17:35, Andrey Mashenkov > <andrey.mashen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Maxim, > > > > Idea has a file in config directory ./config/disabled_plugins.txt , you > can easily find it at you local machine. > > Teamcity Inspections runner has an option "Disabled plugins" where > disabled_plugins.txt file content can be set. > > > > So, looks like we can disable useless plugins. > > But I'm not expert and can't suggest changes we can safely apply. > > > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 4:59 PM Maxim Muzafarov <maxmu...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> Andrey, > >> > >> Thank you for solving this issue with GC pauses! I've checked the > >> given report. The inspections configuration is correct, but it seems > >> to me that we have enabled by default rules of included plugins (for > >> instance, KotlinInternalInJava in the report is enabled). > >> > >> Can you share more details about `disable plugin` option you found? > >> > >> I see that idea instance starts with the default -Didea.plugins.path > >> system property, can we change it so the plugins will be not loaded by > >> default? > >> On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 at 15:45, Andrey Mashenkov > >> <andrey.mashen...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > Maxim, > >> > > >> > It looks like we can't make logs more verbose due to possible bug, > I've create a ticket in Jetbrains Jira [1]. > >> > We can just publish idea logs in artefacts as suggested in this > manual [2]. > >> > > >> > For now, Inspections logs looks like this one [3]. > >> > Also, would you please to take a look at inspection report and check > if we missed smth and there are any unwanted inspection turned on. > >> > > >> > [1] https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/TW-58422 > >> > [2] > https://confluence.jetbrains.com/display/TCD10/Reporting+Issues#ReportingIssues-IntelliJIDEAInspections > >> > [3] > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=2538111&buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_ExcludedInspections2&tab=artifacts > >> > > >> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 3:19 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <dpav...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Maxim M, do you know if we can disable inspections by wildcard? E.g. > >> >> Android* ? > >> >> > >> >> чт, 13 дек. 2018 г. в 14:59, Andrey Mashenkov < > andrey.mashen...@gmail.com>: > >> >> > >> >> > Fixed memory issues with increasing heap size and forcing G1GC. > >> >> > > >> >> > Do we need all these plugins loaded for inspections? > >> >> > I've found a 'disable plugin' option in TC Inspections build > configuration, > >> >> > but it is unclear how to disable plugin correctly. > >> >> > Can someone take over this? > >> >> > > >> >> > > 46 plugins initialized in 1031 ms > >> >> > > 2018-12-13 10:55:24,875 [ 1342] INFO - > llij.ide.plugins.PluginManager - > >> >> > > Loaded bundled plugins: Android Support (10.2.3), Ant Support > (1.0), CSS > >> >> > > Support (172.4574.11), Database Tools and SQL (172.4574.11), > Eclipse > >> >> > > Integration (3.0), FreeMarker support (1.0), GWT Support (1.0), > Gradle > >> >> > > (172.4574.11), Groovy (9.0), Guice (8.0), HTML Tools (2.0), > Hibernate > >> >> > > Support (1.0), I18n for Java (172.4574.11), IDEA CORE > (172.4574.11), > >> >> > > IntelliLang (8.0), JBoss Seam Support (1.0), JUnit (1.0), Java > EE: Bean > >> >> > > Validation Support (1.1), Java EE: Contexts and Dependency > Injection > >> >> > (1.1), > >> >> > > Java EE: EJB, JPA, Servlets (1.0), Java EE: Java Server Faces > (2.2.X.), > >> >> > > Java EE: Web Services (JAX-WS) (1.9), Java Server Pages (JSP) > Integration > >> >> > > (1.0), JavaScript Support (1.0), Kotlin > (1.1.4-release-IJ2017.2-3), Maven > >> >> > > Integration (172.4574.11), Persistence Frameworks Support (1.0), > Plugin > >> >> > > DevKit (1.0), Properties Support (172.4574.11), QuirksMode > (172.4574.11), > >> >> > > Spring AOP/@AspectJ (1.0), Spring Batch (1.0), Spring Data > (1.0), Spring > >> >> > > Integration Patterns (1.0), Spring Security (1.0), Spring > Support (1.0), > >> >> > > Spring Web Flow (1.0), Spring Web Services (1.0), Struts 1.x > (2.0), > >> >> > Struts > >> >> > > 2 (1.0), TestNG-J (8.0), UI Designer (172.4574.11), Velocity > support > >> >> > (1.0), > >> >> > > W3C Validators (2.0), WebLogic Integration (1.0), XPathView + > XSLT > >> >> > Support > >> >> > > (4) > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > Kotlin plugins fails to start, let's disable it. > >> >> > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > 2018-12-13 10:55:27,623 [ 4090] INFO - > >> >> > il.indexing.FileBasedIndexImpl - Rebuild requested for index > >> >> > org.jetbrains.kotlin.idea.versions.KotlinJvmMetadataVersionIndex > >> >> > > java.lang.Throwable > >> >> > > at > >> >> > > com.intellij.util.indexing.FileBasedIndex.requestRebuild(FileBasedIndex.java:68) > >> >> > > at > >> >> > > org.jetbrains.kotlin.idea.versions.KotlinUpdatePluginComponent.initComponent(KotlinUpdatePluginComponent.kt:54) > >> >> > > at > >> >> > > com.intellij.openapi.components.impl.ComponentManagerImpl$ComponentConfigComponentAdapter.getComponentInstance(ComponentManagerImpl.java:492) > >> >> > > at > >> >> > > com.intellij.openapi.components.impl.ComponentManagerImpl.createComponents(ComponentManagerImpl.java:118) > >> >> > > at > >> >> > > com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.a(ApplicationImpl.java:462) > >> >> > > at > >> >> > > com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.createComponents(ApplicationImpl.java:466) > >> >> > > at > >> >> > > com.intellij.openapi.components.impl.ComponentManagerImpl.init(ComponentManagerImpl.java:102) > >> >> > > at > >> >> > > com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.load(ApplicationImpl.java:421) > >> >> > > at > >> >> > > com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.load(ApplicationImpl.java:407) > >> >> > > at > com.intellij.idea.IdeaApplication.run(IdeaApplication.java:203) > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 1:45 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <dpav...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > > Sure, let's apply. I hope all TC agents may handle 4G heap. > >> >> > > > >> >> > > чт, 13 дек. 2018 г. в 12:54, Andrey Mashenkov < > >> >> > andrey.mashen...@gmail.com > >> >> > > >: > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > Guys, > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > I've just creates a copy of Inspections TC build task with GC > logs > >> >> > turned > >> >> > > > on to check if there is any issues > >> >> > > > and found Inspections task spent too much time in STW due to > long Full > >> >> > GC > >> >> > > > pauses. > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > I've tried to increase Xmx up to 4Gb and use G1GC got 2+ times > better > >> >> > > > execution time down to ~15 min (~17 for 2G heap). > >> >> > > > Increasing heap size only is not very helpful as it just > postpone Full > >> >> > GC > >> >> > > > issues, but changing GC to G1GC gives noticeable result. > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > Let's apply this optimization. > >> >> > > > Thoughts? > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 12:43 PM Vyacheslav Daradur < > >> >> > daradu...@gmail.com> > >> >> > > > wrote: > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > Hi, Maxim, Nikolay, I have the following questions regarding > >> >> > > inspections: > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Should 'gnite_inspections_teamcity.xml' been imported into > IDEA, > >> >> > since > >> >> > > > > 'ignite_inspections.xml' has been removed in actual master? > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Also, I've faced mismatching: if I use > >> >> > > > > '@SuppressWarnings("ErrorNotRethrown")' in code, then this > will be > >> >> > > > > marked on TC as "Redundant suppression". If I removed this > >> >> > suppression > >> >> > > > > in "main" code base (not in tests) then it's fine and IDE > does not > >> >> > > > > mark the code by inspection. But, if I use > >> >> > > > > 'GridTestUtils#assertThrows' in 'tests' code base, then IDE > requires > >> >> > > > > to suppress the inspection, if I have done it then TC marks > this as > >> >> > > > > "Redundant suppression". > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > What should I do in this case? > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 10:26 PM Andrey Mashenkov > >> >> > > > > <andrey.mashen...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Hi, > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Have someone tried to investigate the issue related to > Inspection > >> >> > TC > >> >> > > > task > >> >> > > > > > execution time variation (from 0.5 up to 1,5 hours)? > >> >> > > > > > Can we enable GC logs for this task or may be even get > CPU, Disk, > >> >> > > > Network > >> >> > > > > > metrics? > >> >> > > > > > Can someone check if there are unnecessary Idea plugins > starts that > >> >> > > can > >> >> > > > > be > >> >> > > > > > safely disabled? > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 5:52 PM Dmitriy Pavlov < > dpav...@apache.org > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > > wrote: > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > I'm totally with you in this decision, let's move the > file. > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > вт, 27 нояб. 2018 г. в 16:24, Maxim Muzafarov < > >> >> > maxmu...@gmail.com > >> >> > > >: > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Igniters, > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > I propose to make inspection configuration default on > the > >> >> > project > >> >> > > > > > > > level. I've created a new issue [1] for it. It can be > easily > >> >> > done > >> >> > > > and > >> >> > > > > > > > recommend by IntelliJ documentation [2]. > >> >> > > > > > > > Thoughts? > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Vyacheslav, > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Can you share an example of your warnings? > >> >> > > > > > > > Currently, we have different inspection configurations: > >> >> > > > > > > > - ignite_inspections.xml - to import inspections as > default and > >> >> > > use > >> >> > > > > it > >> >> > > > > > > > daily. > >> >> > > > > > > > - ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml - config to run it > on TC. > >> >> > Only > >> >> > > > > fixed > >> >> > > > > > > > rules in the project code are enabled. Each of these > rules are > >> >> > > > marked > >> >> > > > > > > > with ERROR level. > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10422 > >> >> > > > > > > > [2] > https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/code-inspection.html > >> >> > > > > > > > On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 at 13:58, Nikolay Izhikov < > >> >> > > nizhi...@apache.org > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > wrote: > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Hello, Vyacheslav. > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Yes, we have. > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Maxim Muzafarov, can you fix it, please? > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > вт, 20 нояб. 2018 г., 13:10 Vyacheslav Daradur > >> >> > > > daradu...@gmail.com > >> >> > > > > : > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Guys, why we have 2 different inspection files in > the repo? > >> >> > > > > > > > > > idea\ignite_inspections.xml > >> >> > > > > > > > > > idea\ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > AFAIK TeamCity is able to use the same inspection > file with > >> >> > > > IDE. > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > I've imported 'idea\ignite_inspections.xml' in the > IDE, but > >> >> > > now > >> >> > > > > see > >> >> > > > > > > > > > inspection warnings for my PR on TC because of > different > >> >> > > rules. > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 6:06 PM Maxim Muzafarov < > >> >> > > > > maxmu...@gmail.com> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Yakov, Dmitry, > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Which example of unsuccessful suite execution do > we need? > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Does the current fail [1] in the master branch > enough to > >> >> > > > > configure > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > notifications by TC.Bot? > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Please consider adding more checks > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > - line endings. I think we should only have \n > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > - ensure blank line at the end of file > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > It seems to me that `line endings` is easy to > add, but > >> >> > for > >> >> > > > the > >> >> > > > > > > `blank > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > line at the end` we need as special regexp. Can > we focus > >> >> > on > >> >> > > > > > > built-in > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > IntelliJ inspections at first and fix others > special > >> >> > > further? > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > [1] > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E&tab=buildTypeStatusDiv > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 at 17:55, Maxim Muzafarov < > >> >> > > > > maxmu...@gmail.com> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters, > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Since the inspection rules are included in > RunAll a few > >> >> > > > > members > >> >> > > > > > > of > >> >> > > > > > > > the > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > community mentioned a wide distributed > execution time > >> >> > on > >> >> > > TC > >> >> > > > > > > agents: > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > - 1h:27m:38s publicagent17_9094 > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > - 38m:04s publicagent17_9094 > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > - 33m:29s publicagent17_9094 > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > - 17m:13s publicagent17_9094 > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > It seems that we should configure the resources > >> >> > > > distribution > >> >> > > > > > > > across TC > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > containers. Can anyone take a look at it? > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > I've also prepared the short list of rules to > work on: > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Inconsistent line separators (6 matches) > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Problematic whitespace (4 matches) > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + expression.equals("literal")' rather than > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > '"literal".equals(expression) (53 matches) > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Unnecessary 'null' check before 'instanceof' > >> >> > expression > >> >> > > > or > >> >> > > > > call > >> >> > > > > > > > (42 > >> >> > > > > > > > > > matches) > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Redundant 'if' statement (69 matches) > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Redundant interface declaration (28 matches) > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Double negation (0 matches) > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Unnecessary code block (472 matches) > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Line is longer than allowed by code style > (2614 > >> >> > > matches) > >> >> > > > > (Is it > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > possible to implement?) > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT? > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 23:43, Dmitriy Pavlov < > >> >> > > > > > > > dpavlov....@gmail.com> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Maxim, > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > thank you for your efforts to make this > happen. Keep > >> >> > > the > >> >> > > > > pace! > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please provide an example of how > >> >> > Inspections > >> >> > > > can > >> >> > > > > > > fail, > >> >> > > > > > > > so > >> >> > > > > > > > > > I or > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > another contributor could implement support > of these > >> >> > > > > failures > >> >> > > > > > > > > > validation in > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the Tc Bot. > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > пт, 26 окт. 2018 г. в 18:27, Yakov Zhdanov < > >> >> > > > > > > yzhda...@apache.org > >> >> > > > > > > > >: > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maxim, > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for response, let's do it the way > you > >> >> > > suggested. > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please consider adding more checks > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - line endings. I think we should only > have \n > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - ensure blank line in the end of file > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > All these are code reviews issues I > pointed out > >> >> > many > >> >> > > > > times > >> >> > > > > > > when > >> >> > > > > > > > > > reviewing > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > conributions. It would be cool if we have > TC build > >> >> > > > > failing if > >> >> > > > > > > > > > there is any. > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --Yakov > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > -- > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D. > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > -- > >> >> > > > > > Best regards, > >> >> > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > -- > >> >> > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D. > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > -- > >> >> > > > Best regards, > >> >> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > -- > >> >> > Best regards, > >> >> > Andrey V. Mashenkov > >> >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Best regards, > >> > Andrey V. Mashenkov > > > > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > Andrey V. Mashenkov > -- Best regards, Andrey V. Mashenkov
