Maxim, > As far as I understand your case, you want to fix all code styles issues right before getting the final TC results. Right? ...
Actually, I mostly worry about accidental failures. For simple tasks my workflow looks like: 1. Create a branch. 2. Write some code lines and tests. 3. Run the most closely related tests from IDEA. 4. Push changes to the branch. 5. Launch TC. 6. Take a cup of coffee ;-) 7. Check TC results after a couple of hours. And in such workflow I can accidentally leave styling error (IDEA does not fail compilation). And I will receive not very valuable report from TC. And will have to wait for another couple of hours. Yes, usually I do not execute "mvn clean install" locally before triggering TC. And I think that generally we should not do it because TC does it. If not everybody uses a bot visas it sounds bad for me. For patches touching the code it should be mandatory. Also, as you might know there are different kind of visas and for some trivial patches we can request Checkstyle visa. Committers should check formalities. пт, 15 мар. 2019 г. в 10:29, Nikolay Izhikov <nizhi...@apache.org>: > > +1 to enable code style checks in compile time. > > We can add option to disable maven codestyle profile with some environment > variable. > > Anyone who want violate common project rules in their local branch can set > this variable and write some nasty code before push :) > > пт, 15 марта 2019 г., 9:40 Maxim Muzafarov <maxmu...@gmail.com>: >> >> Ivan, >> >> > 1. I can write code and execute tests successfully even if there are >> some style problems. I can imagine that a style error can arise >> occasionally. And instead of getting test results after several hours >> I will get a build failure without any tests run. I will simply lose >> my time. But if the tests are allowed to proceed I will get a red flag >> from code style check, fix those issues and rerun style check. >> >> As far as I understand your case, you want to fix all code styles >> issues right before getting the final TC results. Right? It's doable >> you can disable checkstyle in your local branch and revet it back when >> you've done with all your changes to get the final visa. But the >> common case here is building the project locally and checking all >> requirements for PR right before pushing it to the GitHub repo. I >> always do so. The "Checklist before push" [1] have such >> recommendations. Build the project before push will eliminate your use >> case. >> >> --- >> >> Igniters, >> >> To summarize the options we have with code checking behaviour: >> >> 1) (code style will be broken more often) Run checkstyle in the >> separate TC suite and include it to the Bot visa. >> - not all of us run TC for their branches especially for simple fixes >> (it's the most common case when a new check style errors occur) >> - not all of us use TC.Bot visa to verify their branches >> - if this checkstyle suite starts to fail it will be ignored for some >> time (not blocks the development process) >> - a lot of suites for code checking (license, checkstyle, something >> else in future) >> >> + a bit comfortable way of TC tests execution for local\prototyped PRs >> (it's a matter of taste) >> + build the project and execute test suites a bit earlier (checkstyle >> on the separate suite does not affect other suites) >> >> 2) (code style will be broken less often) Run checkstyle on project build >> stage. >> - increases a bit the build time procedure >> - require additional operations to switch it off for prototyping branches >> >> + do not require TC.Bot visa if someone of the community doesn't use it >> + code style errors will be fixed immediately if the master branch >> starts to fail >> + the single place for code checks on maven code validation stage >> (license check suite can be removed) >> >> >> Please, add another advantages\disadvantages that I've missed. >> Let's vote and pick the most suitable option for the Apache Ignite needs. >> >> --- >> >> Personally, I'd like to choose the 2) option. >> >> The JIRA [2] and PR [3] with the checkstyle enabled plugin is ready >> for the review. >> >> [1] >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+to+Contribute#HowtoContribute-Checklistbeforepush >> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11277 >> [3] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/6119 >> >> On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 at 11:19, Павлухин Иван <vololo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > Maxim, >> > >> > From use cases described by you I use only 1 and 2. And actually I >> > think that we can concentrate on 1 and forget about others for now. >> > But please address my worries from previous letter: >> > ====Quoted text==== >> > 1. I can write code and execute tests successfully even if there are >> > some style problems. I can imagine that a style error can arise >> > occasionally. And instead of getting test results after several hours >> > I will get a build failure without any tests run. I will simply lose >> > my time. But if the tests are allowed to proceed I will get a red flag >> > from code style check, fix those issues and rerun style check. >> > 2. Style check takes some time. With simple checks it is almost >> > negligible. But it can grow if more checks are involved. >> > ====End of quoted text==== >> > >> > Some clarifications. 1 is about running from IDEA first. 2 is related >> > to opinions that we should involve much more checks, e.g. using >> > abbreviations. >> > >> > чт, 7 мар. 2019 г. в 10:36, Maxim Muzafarov <maxmu...@gmail.com>: >> > > >> > > Ivan, >> > > >> > > Let's take a look at all the options we have (ordered by the frequency >> > > of use): >> > > >> > > 1. Check ready for merge branches (main case) >> > > 2. Run tests on TC without checkstyle (prototyping branches) >> > > 3. Local project build >> > > 4. Quick build without any additional actions on TC >> > > >> > > In the other projects (kafka, netty etc.) which I've checked the >> > > checkstyle plugin is used in the <build> section, so the user has no >> > > chance in common cases to disable it via command line (correct me if I'm >> > > wrong). In the PR [1] I've moved checkstyle configuration to the >> > > separate profile. I've set activation checkstyle profile if -DskipTests >> > > specified, so it will run with the basic build configuration. It can >> > > also be disabled locally if we really need it. >> > > >> > > Back to our use cases: >> > > >> > > 1. For checking the ready to merge branches we will fail the ~Build >> > > Apache Ignite~ suite, so no configured checkstyle rules will be >> > > violated. If we will use the TC.Bot approach someone will merge the >> > > branch without running TC.Bot on it, but no one will merge the branch >> > > with compile errors. >> > > >> > > 2. For the prototyping branches, you can turn off checkstyle in your >> > > local PR by removing activation configuration. It's ok as these type of >> > > branches will never be merged to the master. >> > > >> > > 3. From my point, local builds should be always run with the checkstyle >> > > enabled profile. The common build action as `mvn clean install >> > > -DskipTests` will activate the profile. >> > > >> > > 4. The checkstyle profile can be disabled explicitly on TC by specifying >> > > -P !checkstyle option. A don't see any use cases of it, but it's >> > > completely doable. >> > > >> > > Please, correct me if I've missed something. >> > > >> > > I propose to merge PR [1] as it is, with the configured set of rules. >> > > >> > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/6119 >> > > >> > > On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 at 19:02 Павлухин Иван <vololo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> > >> Maxim, >> > >> >> > >> I like an idea of being IDE agnostic. I am ok with currently enabled >> > >> checks, they are a must-have in my opinion (even for prototypes). >> > >> >> > >> But I am still do not like an idea of preventing tests execution if >> > >> style check finds a problem. I checked out PR, installed a plugin and >> > >> tried it out. Here are my concerns: >> > >> 1. I can write code and execute tests successfully even if there are >> > >> some style problems. I can imagine that a style error can arise >> > >> occasionally. And instead of getting test results after several hours >> > >> I will get a build failure without any tests run. I will simply lose >> > >> my time. But if the tests are allowed to proceed I will get a red flag >> > >> from code style check, fix those issues and rerun style check. >> > >> 2. Style check takes some time. With simple checks it is almost >> > >> negligible. But it can grow if more checks are involved. >> > >> >> > >> On the bright side I found nice integration of Checkstyle plugin with >> > >> IDEA commit dialog. There is a checkbox "Scan with Checkstyle" which I >> > >> think is quite useful. >> > >> >> > >> пн, 4 мар. 2019 г. в 15:00, Maxim Muzafarov <maxmu...@gmail.com>: >> > >> > >> > >> > Ivan, >> > >> > >> > >> > I like that Jetbrains inspections are integrated with IDE and TC out >> > >> > of the box, but currently, they are working not well enough on TC. >> > >> > Actually, they are not checking our source code at all. >> > >> > >> > >> > Let's try a bit another approach and try to be IDE-agnostic with code >> > >> > style checking. I've checked popular java projects: hadoop, kafka, >> > >> > spark, hive, netty. All of them are using maven-checkstyle-plugin in >> > >> > their <build> section by default, so why don't we? It sounds >> > >> > reasonable for me at least to try so. >> > >> > >> > >> > Can you take a look at my changes below? >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Igniters, >> > >> > >> > >> > PR [2] has been prepared. All the details I've mentioned in my comment >> > >> > in JIRA [4]. >> > >> > Can anyone take a look at my changes? >> > >> > >> > >> > JIRA: [1] >> > >> > PR: [2] >> > >> > Upsource: [3] >> > >> > >> > >> > Questions to discuss: >> > >> > 1) There is no analogue for inspections RedundantSuppression and >> > >> > SizeReplaceableByIsEmpty (all code style checks [5]). Propose to merge >> > >> > without them. >> > >> > 2) Checkstyle plugin has it's own maven profile and enabled by >> > >> > default. It can be turned off for prototype branches. >> > >> > 3) I've removed the inspections configuration for the TC suite and >> > >> > propose to disable it as not working. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11277 >> > >> > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/6119 >> > >> > [3] https://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-1018 >> > >> > [4] >> > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11277?focusedCommentId=16771200&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-16771200 >> > >> > [5] http://checkstyle.sourceforge.net/checks.html >> > >> > >> > >> > On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 16:21, Павлухин Иван <vololo...@gmail.com> >> > >> > wrote: >> > >> > > >> > >> > > Nikolay, >> > >> > > >> > >> > > > All community members are forced to follow code style. It's >> > >> > > > harder to achieve it with dedicated suite. >> > >> > > Why it is easier to follow code style with use of maven checkstyle >> > >> > > plugin? Is it integrated into IDEA out of box? As I got it >> > >> > > additional >> > >> > > IDEA plugin is needed as well. Who will enforce everybody to install >> > >> > > it? >> > >> > > >> > >> > > Also, as I see a common good practice today is using TC Bot visa. >> > >> > > Visa >> > >> > > includes result from running inspections job. >> > >> > > >> > >> > > чт, 14 февр. 2019 г. в 16:08, Nikolay Izhikov <nizhi...@apache.org>: >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > Ivan, >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > > Could you please outline the benefits you see of failing >> > >> > > > > compilation and >> > >> > > > skipping tests execution if inspections detect a problem? >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > All community members are forced to follow code style. >> > >> > > > It's harder to achieve it with dedicated suite. >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > чт, 14 февр. 2019 г. в 15:21, Павлухин Иван <vololo...@gmail.com>: >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > > Nikolay, >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > > Should the community spend TC resources for prototype? >> > >> > > > > Why not? I think it is not bad idea to run all tests against >> > >> > > > > some >> > >> > > > > changes into core classes. If I have a clever idea which is >> > >> > > > > easy to >> > >> > > > > test drive I can do couple of prototype-test iterations. If >> > >> > > > > tests >> > >> > > > > shows me that everything is bad then the idea was not so clever >> > >> > > > > and >> > >> > > > > easy. But if I was lucky then I should discuss the idea with >> > >> > > > > other >> > >> > > > > Igniters. I think it is the cheapest way to check the idea >> > >> > > > > because the >> > >> > > > > check is fully automated. Requiring a human feedback is much >> > >> > > > > more >> > >> > > > > expensive in my opinion. >> > >> > > > > > But, If our code style is not convinient for every day coding >> > >> > > > > > for many >> > >> > > > > contributors, should you initiate discussion to change it? >> > >> > > > > Generally I am fine with our codestyle requirements. >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > Also, I would like to keep a focus on the subject. Could you >> > >> > > > > please >> > >> > > > > outline the benefits you see of failing compilation and >> > >> > > > > skipping tests >> > >> > > > > execution if inspections detect a problem? >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > чт, 14 февр. 2019 г. в 14:14, Nikolay Izhikov >> > >> > > > > <nizhi...@apache.org>: >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > Hello, Ivan. >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > Requirements for a prototype code are not the same as for a >> > >> > > > > > > patch ready >> > >> > > > > > to merge >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > True. >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > I do not see much need in writing good javadocs for >> > >> > > > > > > prototype. >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > We, as a community, can't force you to do it. >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > Why should I stub it to be able run any build on TC? >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > Should the community spend TC resources for prototype? >> > >> > > > > > You always can check tests for your prototype locally. >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > And when it's ready, at least from code style point of view >> > >> > > > > > run it on TC. >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > I, personally, always try to follow project code style, even >> > >> > > > > > for >> > >> > > > > prototypes. >> > >> > > > > > But, If our code style is not convinient for every day coding >> > >> > > > > > for many >> > >> > > > > > contributors, should you initiate discussion to change it? >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > ср, 13 февр. 2019 г. в 16:45, Павлухин Иван >> > >> > > > > > <vololo...@gmail.com>: >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > Maxim, >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > Oh, my poor tabs.. Joke. >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > I am totally ok with currently enabled checks. But I am >> > >> > > > > > > mostly >> > >> > > > > > > concerned about a general approach. I would like to outline >> > >> > > > > > > one thing. >> > >> > > > > > > Requirements for a prototype code are not the same as for a >> > >> > > > > > > patch >> > >> > > > > > > ready to merge (see a little bit more in the end of that >> > >> > > > > > > message). >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > We have a document defining code style which every >> > >> > > > > > > contributor should >> > >> > > > > > > follow [1]. And many points can be checked automatically. >> > >> > > > > > > Personally, >> > >> > > > > > > I do not see much need in writing good javadocs for >> > >> > > > > > > prototype. Why >> > >> > > > > > > should I stub it to be able run any build on TC? >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > Also, we a have a review process which should be applied to >> > >> > > > > > > every >> > >> > > > > > > patch. Partially it is described in [2]. And due to this >> > >> > > > > > > process every >> > >> > > > > > > patch should not introduce new failures on TC. So, the >> > >> > > > > > > patch should >> > >> > > > > > > not be merged if inspections failed. >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > P.S. Something more about prototypes and production code. >> > >> > > > > > > There is a >> > >> > > > > > > common bad practice in software engineering. It is turning >> > >> > > > > > > prototypes >> > >> > > > > > > into production code. Often it is much faster to create a >> > >> > > > > > > prototype by >> > >> > > > > > > price of violating some rules of writing "clean code". And >> > >> > > > > > > often >> > >> > > > > > > prototype after successful piloting is turned into >> > >> > > > > > > production code. >> > >> > > > > > > And it is very easy in practice to keep some pieces of >> > >> > > > > > > initially >> > >> > > > > > > "dirty" prototype code. I believe human factor plays a >> > >> > > > > > > great role >> > >> > > > > > > here. How should it be done right then? In my opinion good >> > >> > > > > > > production >> > >> > > > > > > code should be designed as "good production code" from the >> > >> > > > > > > beginning. >> > >> > > > > > > So, only ideas are taken from the prototype and a code is >> > >> > > > > > > fully >> > >> > > > > > > rewritten. >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > [1] >> > >> > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Coding+Guidelines >> > >> > > > > > > [2] >> > >> > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Review+Checklist >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > ср, 13 февр. 2019 г. в 15:05, Maxim Muzafarov >> > >> > > > > > > <maxmu...@gmail.com>: >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > Ivan, >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > As the first implementation of this addition, I'd prefer >> > >> > > > > > > > to make it >> > >> > > > > > > > working like _Licenses Headers_ suite check. It will fail >> > >> > > > > > > > when some >> > >> > > > > of >> > >> > > > > > > > the code style checks violated. Moreover, these licenses >> > >> > > > > > > > header >> > >> > > > > checks >> > >> > > > > > > > can be included in the checkstyle plugin configuration. >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > In general, I'd prefer to have a compilation fail error >> > >> > > > > > > > with code >> > >> > > > > > > > style checks and after we will get a stable checkstyle >> > >> > > > > > > > suite I >> > >> > > > > propose >> > >> > > > > > > > to change it in a "compilation error" way. If we are >> > >> > > > > > > > talking about >> > >> > > > > the >> > >> > > > > > > > coding style convenient for most of the community members >> > >> > > > > > > > I see no >> > >> > > > > > > > difference with coding sketches or production-ready >> > >> > > > > > > > branches equally. >> > >> > > > > > > > Indeed, no one will be against unused imports [or spaces >> > >> > > > > > > > instead of >> > >> > > > > > > > tabs :-) ] in their PRs or prototypes, right? (for >> > >> > > > > > > > instance, it can >> > >> > > > > be >> > >> > > > > > > > automatically removed by IDE at commit phase). >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > Please, note currently enabled checks are: >> > >> > > > > > > > - list.isEmpty() instead of list.size() == 0 >> > >> > > > > > > > - unused imports >> > >> > > > > > > > - missing @Override >> > >> > > > > > > > - sotred modifiers checks (e.g. pulic static final ..) >> > >> > > > > > > > - redundunt suppersion checks >> > >> > > > > > > > - spaces insted of tabs. >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > Are you really what to violate these checks in your >> > >> > > > > > > > sketches? Hope >> > >> > > > > not >> > >> > > > > > > :-) >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 at 10:25, Nikolay Izhikov >> > >> > > > > > > > <nizhi...@apache.org> >> > >> > > > > > > wrote: >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > Actually, I dont see anything wrong with failing >> > >> > > > > > > > > *compilation* >> > >> > > > > task. >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > I think one should use project code style for everyday >> > >> > > > > > > > > coding, not >> > >> > > > > > > only for >> > >> > > > > > > > > ready-to-merge PRs. >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > If we cant use code style for everyday coding, we >> > >> > > > > > > > > should change the >> > >> > > > > > > > > codestyle. >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > What do you think? >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > ср, 13 февр. 2019 г., 10:11 Petr Ivanov >> > >> > > > > > > > > mr.wei...@gmail.com: >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > I guess that was about failing build configuration >> > >> > > > > > > > > > with >> > >> > > > > Checkstype, >> > >> > > > > > > not >> > >> > > > > > > > > > compilation build itself. >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > On 12 Feb 2019, at 18:03, Павлухин Иван >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > <vololo...@gmail.com> >> > >> > > > > > > wrote: >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > Folks, >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > Are you going to fail job compiling Ignite sources >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > [1] if some >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > inspection found a problem? Can we avoid it? It is >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > quite common >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > pattern to start some feature implementation with >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > making a >> > >> > > > > sketch >> > >> > > > > > > and >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > running tests against it. I found it convenient to >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > skip some >> > >> > > > > style >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > requirements for such sketches (e.g. well formed >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > javadocs). >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > [1] >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_BuildApacheIgnite >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > пн, 11 февр. 2019 г. в 11:38, Nikolay Izhikov < >> > >> > > > > nizhi...@apache.org >> > >> > > > > > > >: >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> Petr, we should have 1 configuration for project, >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> may be 1 >> > >> > > > > > > configuration >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> per programming language. >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> пн, 11 февр. 2019 г., 11:33 Petr Ivanov >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> mr.wei...@gmail.com: >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>> I was asking about how many build configuration >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>> is intended? >> > >> > > > > One >> > >> > > > > > > for >> > >> > > > > > > > > > all >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>> and multiple per module? >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>> With IDEA inspections it was going to be build >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>> configuration >> > >> > > > > per >> > >> > > > > > > > > > module. >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>> On 11 Feb 2019, at 11:24, Nikolay Izhikov < >> > >> > > > > nizhi...@apache.org> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > wrote: >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>> Hello, Petr. >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>> Are you saying that we have not single build >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>> task? And each >> > >> > > > > > > module >> > >> > > > > > > > > > builds >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>> when it required? If yes, then I propose to >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>> create a task >> > >> > > > > like >> > >> > > > > > > > > > "Licence >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>> check" which will be run for every patch. >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>> My point is that violation of codestyle should >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>> be treated as >> > >> > > > > > > hard as >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>> compile error. >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>> пн, 11 февр. 2019 г., 11:16 Petr Ivanov >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>> mr.wei...@gmail.com >> > >> > > > > : >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Is build configuration Inspections [Core] meant >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> to >> > >> > > > > transform >> > >> > > > > > > into >> > >> > > > > > > > > > single >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> all-modules check build configuration (without >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> module >> > >> > > > > > > subdivision)? >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On 11 Feb 2019, at 11:02, Nikolay Izhikov < >> > >> > > > > > > nizhi...@apache.org> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > wrote: >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Hello, Maxim. >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> +1 from me for migrating to checkstyle. >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Oleg, there is plugin for IDEA with 2mln >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> downloads - >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> https://plugins.jetbrains.com/plugin/1065-checkstyle-idea >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I propose do the following: >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 1. Migrate current checks to checkstyle. >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 2. Apply checks to all Ignite modules. >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Currently, only >> > >> > > > > core >> > >> > > > > > > module >> > >> > > > > > > > > > are >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> checked. >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I will review and commit this patch, or do it >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> by my own. >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 3. Include code style checks to "Build Apache >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Ignite" >> > >> > > > > suite. >> > >> > > > > > > Ignite >> > >> > > > > > > > > > has >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> to >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> fail to build if patch violates codestyle. >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> вс, 10 февр. 2019 г. в 07:54, Павлухин Иван < >> > >> > > > > > > vololo...@gmail.com>: >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Hi, >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I also think that some warning from IDEA that >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> some code >> > >> > > > > > > style rule >> > >> > > > > > > > > > is >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> violated is a must-have. >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> вс, 10 февр. 2019 г. в 01:58, oignatenko < >> > >> > > > > > > oignate...@gridgain.com >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >: >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Hi Maxim, >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> I believe that whatever style checks we >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> establish at >> > >> > > > > > > Teamcity, we >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> better >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> take care of making it easy for developers >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> to find and >> > >> > > > > fix >> > >> > > > > > > > > > violations >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> in >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> their typical dev environment (for Ignite >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> this means, in >> > >> > > > > > > IDEA). I >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>> think >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> it >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> is important that developers can maintain >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> required style >> > >> > > > > > > with >> > >> > > > > > > > > > minimal >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> effort >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> on their side. >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> If above is doable then I am 200% for >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> migrating our >> > >> > > > > Teamcity >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> inspections >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> to >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> checkstyle / maven. >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> This is because I am very disappointed >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> observing how it >> > >> > > > > > > stays >> > >> > > > > > > > > > broken >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> for >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> so >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> long. And worst of all, even when (if) it is >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> fixed, I >> > >> > > > > feel >> > >> > > > > > > we will >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> always be >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> at risk that it breaks again and that we >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> will have to >> > >> > > > > again >> > >> > > > > > > wait >> > >> > > > > > > > > > for >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> months >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> for it to be fixed. >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> This is such a stark contrast with my >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> experience >> > >> > > > > regarding >> > >> > > > > > > > > > checkstyle >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> based >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> inspections. These just work and you just >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> never fear >> > >> > > > > that >> > >> > > > > > > it is >> > >> > > > > > > > > > going >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> to >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> break for some obscure reason, this is so >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> much better >> > >> > > > > than >> > >> > > > > > > what I >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> observe >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> now. >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> One suggestion in case if we pick checkstyle >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - I >> > >> > > > > recommend >> > >> > > > > > > keeping >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>> its >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> config file somewhere in the project under >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> version >> > >> > > > > control. >> > >> > > > > > > I >> > >> > > > > > > > > > used to >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> maintain such a shared style config at one >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> of past jobs >> > >> > > > > and >> > >> > > > > > > after >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>> some >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> experimenting it turned out most convenient >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> to have it >> > >> > > > > this >> > >> > > > > > > way - >> > >> > > > > > > > > > so >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> that >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> developers could easily assess and discuss >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> style >> > >> > > > > settings >> > >> > > > > > > and keep >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> track >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> of >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> changes in these. (note how Kafka folks from >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> your link >> > >> > > > > [5] >> > >> > > > > > > appear >> > >> > > > > > > > > > to >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>> be >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> doing it this way) >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> regards, Oleg >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Mmuzaf wrote >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Igniters, >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> I've found that some of the community >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> members have >> > >> > > > > faced >> > >> > > > > > > with >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> `[Inspections] Core suite [1]` is not >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> working well >> > >> > > > > enough >> > >> > > > > > > on TC. >> > >> > > > > > > > > > The >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> suite has a `FAILED` status for more than 2 >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> months due >> > >> > > > > to >> > >> > > > > > > some >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>> issues >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> in TeamCity application [2]. Current suite >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> behaviour >> > >> > > > > > > confuses not >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>> only >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> new contributors but also other community >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> members. >> > >> > > > > > > Moreover, this >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> suite is no longer checks rules we >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> previously >> > >> > > > > configured. >> > >> > > > > > > For >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> instance, in the master branch, I've found >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 11 `Unused >> > >> > > > > > > imports` >> > >> > > > > > > > > > which >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> should have been caught earlier (e.g. for >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> {{IgniteCachePutAllRestartTest} [3]). >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> I think we should make the next step to >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> enable an >> > >> > > > > > > automatic code >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>> style >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> checks. As an example, we can consider the >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Apache Kafka >> > >> > > > > > > code >> > >> > > > > > > > > > style >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>> [5] >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> way and configure for the Ignite project a >> > >> > > > > > > > > > maven-checkstyle-plugin >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> with its own maven profile and run it >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> simultaneously >> > >> > > > > with >> > >> > > > > > > other >> > >> > > > > > > > > > TC. >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>> We >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> can also enable the previously configured >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> inspection >> > >> > > > > > > rules, so no >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> coding style violations will be missed. >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> I see some advantages of using a maven >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> plugin: >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> - an IDE agnostic way for code checks >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> - can be used with different CI and build >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> tools >> > >> > > > > (Jenkins, >> > >> > > > > > > TC) >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> - executable from the command line >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> - the entry single point to configure new >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> rules >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> I've created the ticket [4] and will >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> prepare PR for it. >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> WDYT? >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> [1] >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E&tab=buildTypeStatusDiv >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> [2] >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/TW-58504 >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> [3] >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/core/src/test/java/org/apache/ignite/internal/processors/cache/IgniteCachePutAllRestartTest.java#L29 >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> [4] >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11277 >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> [5] >> > >> > > > > https://github.com/apache/kafka/tree/trunk/checkstyle >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 at 16:03, Petr Ivanov >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> < >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> mr.weider@ >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > wrote: >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> It seems there is bug in latest 2018.2 >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> TeamCity >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Bug is filed [1] >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [1] >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/TW-58504 >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On 19 Dec 2018, at 11:31, Petr Ivanov < >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> mr.weider@ >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > wrote: >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Investigating problem, stand by. >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 Dec 2018, at 19:41, Dmitriy Pavlov >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> < >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> dpavlov@ >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > wrote: >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Both patches were applied. Maxim, thank >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> you! >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> What about 1. An `Unexpected error >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> during build >> > >> > > > > messages >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> processing in >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> TeamCity`, what can we do as the next >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> step to fix >> > >> > > > > it? >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Sincerely, >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy Pavlov >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [cut] >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> -- >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Sent from: >> > >> > > > > > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/ >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> -- >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Best regards, >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Ivan Pavlukhin >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > -- >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > -- >> > >> > > > > > > Best regards, >> > >> > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > -- >> > >> > > > > Best regards, >> > >> > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > -- >> > >> > > Best regards, >> > >> > > Ivan Pavlukhin >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> -- >> > >> Best regards, >> > >> Ivan Pavlukhin >> > > >> > > -- >> > > -- >> > > Maxim Muzafarov >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Best regards, >> > Ivan Pavlukhin >> -- Best regards, Ivan Pavlukhin
