Hi Igniters, I see that a new TeamCity is released: Version: 2018.2.3.
Probably it could solve recently introduced problem related to: Unexpected error during build messages processing in TeamCity; Peter I., could you please check? Sincerely, Dmitriy Pavlov пт, 15 мар. 2019 г. в 12:04, Павлухин Иван <vololo...@gmail.com>: > I agree to gather some votes according to Maxim's proposal. > > Personally, I will not put my vote here. Both options will work for me > today. > > But I would like to say a bit about agility. As I said both options > sounds fine for me today. And I believe that we can switch from one to > another easily in future. Let's do our best to be flexible. > > пт, 15 мар. 2019 г. в 12:04, Павлухин Иван <vololo...@gmail.com>: > > > > 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 > > > > -- > Best regards, > Ivan Pavlukhin > >
