Hello Igniters, [A quick introduction: My name is Garrett and I manage documentation at GridGain. I'm relatively new here — I've been at GridGain for 4 months — but I've been in Documentation for most of my career.]
I put together some _proposed_ guidelines for Javadocs as a starting point for us to discuss, *modify*, and hopefully eventually adopt. These are based on what I've seen succeed at other companies/on the internet: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=123900577 For me, the reason I prefer optional comments is that I don't want users to have to wade through the obvious stuff to find the useful/insightful information. If we can reduce the amount of comments, but still retain the useful information, the readers will be rewarded. Thanks! === Garrett Alley Documentation GridGain Systems On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 7:52 AM Maxim Muzafarov <maxmu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ivan, > > It is not a problem to check Javadocs at the moment code syle checking > performed, but do we really need this? And the human-factor you > mentioned above is also related to the `self-descriptive` names. I > assume, that someone now is desiring to use single-letter variables > and single-letter class names to save space an time. We will always > have such an opinion race. > > I'd prefer to leave the current situation with Javadoc as it is and > just to ask to apply the patch [1][2]. Can you? :-) > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12051 > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/6760 > > On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 at 17:24, Павлухин Иван <vololo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Maxim, > > > > My main concern here is a human factor. Humans are usually not so good > > in keeping documentation always in sync with a code. Examples from an > > actual PR: > > /** > > * @param nodeId The remote node id. > > * @param channel The channel to notify listeners with. > > */ > > private void onChannelOpened0(UUID nodeId, GridIoMessage initMsg, > > Channel channel) > > > > First, there is a mismatch between number of parameters in javadoc and > > code. Second, e.g. nodeId name can be made self-descriptive rmtNodeId > > name. > > > > Mandatory javadocs do not imply good javadocs. Good javadocs do not > > imply javadocs for every method and field. For me, mandatory and good > > javadocs are like communism. Sounds quite nice in theory, but not > > feasible in practice. > > > > чт, 8 авг. 2019 г. в 16:55, Denis Garus <garus....@gmail.com>: > > > > > > Thank you, Maxim. > > > > > > >>On what we are trying to save by making Javadoc optional? > > > > > > Space and time. > > > > > > I doubt that we need a verbal description of what private method make. > > > Why we need it if we just can read the code? > > > > > > Bright examples: > > > > > > /** > > > * @param helper Helper to attach to kernal context. > > > */ > > > private void addHelper(Object helper) { > > > ctx.addHelper(helper); > > > } > > > > > > /** > > > * Gets "on" or "off" string for given boolean value. > > > * > > > * @param b Boolean value to convert. > > > * @return Result string. > > > */ > > > private String onOff(boolean b) { > > > return b ? "on" : "off"; > > > } > > > > > > You have to support both code of method and their JavaDoc description, > but > > > it doesn't get any sake. > > > > > > >>Let's just help them to read the source code. > > > > > > But at the same time, public method IgniteKernal#start doesn't have any > > > description except enumeration of attributes with apparent notes. > > > Maybe to give it a verbal description needs one or two pages of the > screen. > > > Does it make sense? > > > > > > чт, 8 авг. 2019 г. в 15:41, Maxim Muzafarov <maxmu...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > Igniters, > > > > > > > > I'm -1 with making Javadoc optional (except tests). > > > > > > > > Here is my patch [1] with PR [2] which fixes all the Javadoc comments > > > > for the IgniteKernal class mentioned above. Please, take a look. The > > > > review is very appreciated. > > > > > > > > On what we are trying to save by making Javadoc optional? In my > humble > > > > opinion - Javadoc comments are mostly concern users who debug the > > > > Ignite when they have faced with some unhandled exception or related > > > > to the community members with an average involvement (produces a few > > > > small patches during the year) but not to the experienced one. Let's > > > > just help them to read the source code. > > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12051 > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/6760 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 13:54, Andrey Kuznetsov <stku...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > +1 for making javadoc comments optional. > > > > > > > > > > - Empty and tautological comments are kind of garbage that reduce > > > > > readability. > > > > > - It's better to leave the entity undocumented, than write > > > > > unexpressive/misleading comment. > > > > > - Even classes may not require javadocs, e.g. simple DTOs. > > > > > > > > > > ср, 7 авг. 2019 г., 13:39 Denis Garus <garus....@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > > > > > Thx for feedback! > > > > > > > > > > > > >> we have to write proper javadoc for all production classes, > > > > including > > > > > > internal. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nikolay, I cannot agree with it. > > > > > > > > > > > > What should be the best comment for the next fields? > > > > > > /** */ > > > > > > private static final long serialVersionUID = 0L; > > > > > > or > > > > > > /** */ > > > > > > @LoggerResource > > > > > > private IgniteLogger log; > > > > > > > > > > > > There are more than 8000 lines of /** */ only at the ignite-core > > > > module (do > > > > > > not include tests). > > > > > > > > > > > > Any comments will be redundant and just noise. Obvious comment > learns > > > > > > readers skip all comments. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> identical distance/padding/margin between fields in a class - > is > > > > really > > > > > > cool > > > > > > > > > > > > Vyacheslav, but we have a blank line between fields. Why is one > blank > > > > line > > > > > > not enough? > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 7 авг. 2019 г. в 12:58, Павлухин Иван <vololo...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis, thank you for starting this discussion! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My opinion here is that having a good javadoc for every class > and > > > > > > > method is not feasible in the real world. I am quite curious > to see a > > > > > > > non-trivial project which follows it. Also, all comments and > javadocs > > > > > > > are prone to become misleading when code changes (human > factor). In > > > > my > > > > > > > experience good method and variable names and clear code > organization > > > > > > > often are more helpful than javadocs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 7 авг. 2019 г. в 12:49, Vyacheslav Daradur < > daradu...@gmail.com > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree that useless comments look weird in the codebase. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, identical distance/padding/margin between fields in a > class - > > > > is > > > > > > > > really cool, and helps read the class very fast. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 12:26 PM Nikolay Izhikov < > > > > nizhi...@apache.org> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Denis. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for starting this discussion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we have to write proper javadoc for all production > > > > classes, > > > > > > > including internal. > > > > > > > > > We should fix useless javadoc you provide. > > > > > > > > > We should not accept patches without good javadocs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As for the tests, seems, we can make javadoc optional. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > В Ср, 07/08/2019 в 11:41 +0300, Denis Garus пишет: > > > > > > > > > > Igniters! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it's time to change coding guidelines in part of > > > > JavaDoc > > > > > > > comments > > > > > > > > > > [1]: > > > > > > > > > > > > Every method, field or initializer public, private or > > > > protected > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top-level, > > > > > > > > > > > > inner or anonymous type should have at least minimal > > > > Javadoc > > > > > > > comments > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > including > > > > > > > > > > > > description and description of parameters using > @param, > > > > @return > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @throws Javadoc tags, > > > > > > > > > > > > where applicable. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's look at JavaDoc comments in the IgniteKernal class: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /** */ - 15 matches. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What can you get new from these comments? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /** Periodic starvation check interval. */ > > > > > > > > > > private static final long PERIODIC_STARVATION_CHECK_FREQ > = > > > > 1000 * > > > > > > 30; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /** Long jvm pause detector. */ > > > > > > > > > > private LongJVMPauseDetector longJVMPauseDetector; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /** Scheduler. */ > > > > > > > > > > private IgniteScheduler scheduler; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /** Stop guard. */ > > > > > > > > > > private final AtomicBoolean stopGuard = new > > > > AtomicBoolean(); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /** > > > > > > > > > > * @param cfg Configuration to use. > > > > > > > > > > * @param utilityCachePool Utility cache pool. > > > > > > > > > > * @param execSvc Executor service. > > > > > > > > > > * @param sysExecSvc System executor service. > > > > > > > > > > * @param stripedExecSvc Striped executor. > > > > > > > > > > * @param p2pExecSvc P2P executor service. > > > > > > > > > > * @param mgmtExecSvc Management executor service. > > > > > > > > > > * @param igfsExecSvc IGFS executor service. > > > > > > > > > > * @param dataStreamExecSvc data stream executor > service. > > > > > > > > > > * @param restExecSvc Reset executor service. > > > > > > > > > > * @param affExecSvc Affinity executor service. > > > > > > > > > > * @param idxExecSvc Indexing executor service. > > > > > > > > > > * @param callbackExecSvc Callback executor service. > > > > > > > > > > * @param qryExecSvc Query executor service. > > > > > > > > > > * @param schemaExecSvc Schema executor service. > > > > > > > > > > * @param customExecSvcs Custom named executors. > > > > > > > > > > * @param errHnd Error handler to use for > notification > > > > about > > > > > > > startup > > > > > > > > > > problems. > > > > > > > > > > * @param workerRegistry Worker registry. > > > > > > > > > > * @param hnd Default uncaught exception handler > used by > > > > thread > > > > > > > pools. > > > > > > > > > > * @throws IgniteCheckedException Thrown in case of > any > > > > errors. > > > > > > > > > > */ > > > > > > > > > > public void start( > > > > > > > > > > final IgniteConfiguration cfg, > > > > > > > > > > ExecutorService utilityCachePool, > > > > > > > > > > final ExecutorService execSvc, > > > > > > > > > > final ExecutorService svcExecSvc, > > > > > > > > > > final ExecutorService sysExecSvc, > > > > > > > > > > final StripedExecutor stripedExecSvc, > > > > > > > > > > ExecutorService p2pExecSvc, > > > > > > > > > > ExecutorService mgmtExecSvc, > > > > > > > > > > ExecutorService igfsExecSvc, > > > > > > > > > > StripedExecutor dataStreamExecSvc, > > > > > > > > > > ExecutorService restExecSvc, > > > > > > > > > > ExecutorService affExecSvc, > > > > > > > > > > @Nullable ExecutorService idxExecSvc, > > > > > > > > > > IgniteStripedThreadPoolExecutor callbackExecSvc, > > > > > > > > > > ExecutorService qryExecSvc, > > > > > > > > > > ExecutorService schemaExecSvc, > > > > > > > > > > @Nullable final Map<String, ? extends > ExecutorService> > > > > > > > > > > customExecSvcs, > > > > > > > > > > GridAbsClosure errHnd, > > > > > > > > > > WorkersRegistry workerRegistry, > > > > > > > > > > Thread.UncaughtExceptionHandler hnd, > > > > > > > > > > TimeBag startTimer > > > > > > > > > > ) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > These comments look ugly and useless, and that is the > main > > > > class of > > > > > > > core. > > > > > > > > > > Why do they need us? > > > > > > > > > > Let us change the coding guidelines in part of JavaDoc > > > > comments: > > > > > > > > > > Every method public API should have at least minimal > Javadoc > > > > > > > comments, > > > > > > > > > > including description and description of parameters using > > > > @param, > > > > > > > @return, > > > > > > > > > > and @throws Javadoc tags, > > > > > > > > > > where applicable. > > > > > > > > > > For internal API, JavaDoc comments should be optional. > It's up > > > > to a > > > > > > > > > > contributor or reviewer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What are you think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Coding+Guidelines#CodingGuidelines-JavadocComments > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > Ivan Pavlukhin >
