Beware , I have seen intellij reformatting screwing up javadocs and failing
the "ant precommit"

On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 11:59 PM, Erick Erickson <[email protected]>
wrote:

> bq: I honestly don't know how I feel about such a 'complete' approach
>
> Well, join the club ;). Borrowing from Martin Fowler's "refactoring"
> book, it's often an anti-pattern to muck with code that you're not
> working on. OTOH, this is a "broken window" problem, the more bad
> formatting that creeps in the more likely people will pattern their
> own code after it.
>
> Frankly, the only time I've ever seen absolutely uniform formatting is
> in cases where it's part of the checkin process and not voluntary at
> all.
>
> But we can take a whack at resetting the bar.
>
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 10:50 AM, Mark Miller <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > I honestly don't know how I feel about such a 'complete' approach, but I
> > will say we have made such sweeping patch breaking changes before.
> >
> > - Mark
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 1:44 PM Erick Erickson <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Let's re-open the "let's reformat the entire code base" topic again.
> >> Actually, I'd be happy to volunteer to do this if
> >>
> >> 1> we reached consensus on whether or not it's a good thing.
> >> 2> we reached consensus on what to reformat. For instance, I can
> >> convince IntelliJ to reformat any directory of files. So it'd be
> >> possible to reformat, say, just the Solr code. Or just the cloud
> >> sub-folder. Or.....
> >> 3> we reached consensus on when to do any part of this. The last thing
> >> I'd want to do is screw up someones large complex branch under
> >> development, but we could approach this piecemeal. Say open a JIRA
> >> "Reformat the solr/core/src/test directory", give people a chance to
> >> object before doing it, etc.
> >> 4> I'd be happy to do the process in the Lucene code base too, but
> >> since I'm personally rarely in that code I'd just as happily leave
> >> that out of the discussion, up to the guys who _are_ in that code IMO.
> >>
> >> FWIW,
> >> Erick
> >>
> >> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Mike Drob <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > For Eclipse you can get it but only automatically on a save.
> Preferences
> >> > >
> >> > Java > Editor > Save Actions.
> >> > If you don't like the changes that it makes, I've found that you can
> >> > undo
> >> > and save again, and it won't re-format.
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Mark Miller <[email protected]>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Interesting - never seen such a thing with Eclipse - anyone else?
> >> >>
> >> >> I just select the new block of code and shift + control + F. Not bad,
> >> >> but
> >> >> would love to have that option as well.
> >> >>
> >> >>  I usually avoid fixing extra formatting in my patches, but for some
> of
> >> >> the super violations (someone just uses a complete different idea of
> >> >> code
> >> >> formatting) I'd rather it be fixed than worry about diffs. This type
> of
> >> >> thing proliferates and lately it feels like it's been going down
> hill.
> >> >>
> >> >> - Mark
> >> >>
> >> >> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 10:00 AM Erick Erickson
> >> >> <[email protected]>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Ishan:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Don't know which IDE you use, but IntelliJ has an "only vcs changed
> >> >>> code" or some such when reformatting that I find _very_ useful.
> It's a
> >> >>> bit dangerous because the _last_ thing you want to do is reformat
> >> >>> entire files, makes it really hard to look at diffs but I find the
> >> >>> ability to reformat just what's changed great!.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Best,
> >> >>> Erick
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 12:41 AM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya (JIRA)
> >> >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >     [
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-6673?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14352639#comment-14352639
> >> >>> > ]
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > Ishan Chattopadhyaya edited comment on SOLR-6673 at 3/9/15 7:40
> AM:
> >> >>> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > Apologies for the inconsistent formatting; I'll keep this in mind
> >> >>> > :-)
> >> >>> > Thanks for calling it out!
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > Updated the patch with changes going to SolrLogLayout, adding the
> >> >>> > MDC
> >> >>> > values in this format:
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > [core] [collection] [shard] [replica]
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > was (Author: ichattopadhyaya):
> >> >>> > Apologies for the inconsistent formatting; I'll keep this in mind
> >> >>> > :-)
> >> >>> > Thanks for calling it out!
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > Updated the patch with changes going to SolrLogLayout, adding the
> >> >>> > MDC
> >> >>> > values in this format:
> >> >>> > [%X{core}] [%X{collection}] [%X{shard}] [%X{replica}]
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >> MDC based logging of collection, shard etc.
> >> >>> >> -------------------------------------------
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >>                 Key: SOLR-6673
> >> >>> >>                 URL:
> >> >>> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-6673
> >> >>> >>             Project: Solr
> >> >>> >>          Issue Type: Improvement
> >> >>> >>            Reporter: Ishan Chattopadhyaya
> >> >>> >>            Assignee: Noble Paul
> >> >>> >>              Labels: logging
> >> >>> >>         Attachments: SOLR-6673.patch, SOLR-6673.patch,
> >> >>> >> SOLR-6673.patch, log4j.properties, log4j.properties
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> In cloud mode, the many log items don't contain the collection
> >> >>> >> name,
> >> >>> >> shard name, core name etc. Debugging becomes specially difficult
> >> >>> >> when many
> >> >>> >> collections/shards are hosted on the same node.
> >> >>> >> The proposed solution adds MDC based stamping of collection,
> shard,
> >> >>> >> core to the thread.
> >> >>> >> See also: SOLR-5969, SOLR-5277
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > --
> >> >>> > This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
> >> >>> > (v6.3.4#6332)
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> >> >>> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
> >> >>> >
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> >> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
> >> >>>
> >> >
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
> >>
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>
>


-- 
-----------------------------------------------------
Noble Paul

Reply via email to