Zili, I think 'build' is a good option Enrico
Il giorno mer 17 lug 2019 alle ore 11:18 Zili Chen <[email protected]> ha scritto: > Andor & Enrico, > > I find there is no proper JIRA component this thread can be put under. > > Any advise?(Both "document" or "server" used now seems not quite accurate. > > Best, > tison. > > > Zili Chen <[email protected]> 于2019年7月16日周二 下午6:28写道： > > > Hi Justin, > > > > Thanks for the reply. > > > > I will close ZOOKEEPER-3446 later in fact. Because > > our consensus above is that we would add the checkstyle > > configuration at first and enable it per module. > > > > I'm glad to follow ZOOKEEPER-3431 to see if anything I > > can help with. > > > > Best, > > tison. > > > > > > Justin Ling Mao <[email protected]> 于2019年7月16日周二 下午6:19写道： > > > >> -1. @Zili Chen > >> I had linked ZOOKEEPER-3434(closed),ZOOKEEPER-3446 to the > >> *ZOOKEEPER-3431* which now is a Umbrella JIRA (Type:Task). > >> I will also take your advice about the subtasks. > >> -2 --->"*Please add jute and Prometheus module*" > >> @Olivelli.That's OK. > >> > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: Zili Chen <[email protected]> > >> To: DevZooKeeper <[email protected]> > >> Cc: [email protected] > >> Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clean up the all the checkstyle violations in > >> the zookeeper-server module > >> Date: 2019-07-16 15:18 > >> > >> The main concern here is that we have already too > >> many issues on enable specific rules on zookeeper, > >> including ZOOKEEPER-3434 and ZOOKEEPER-3446, > >> and it would be quite noisy to enable per rule(as > >> been described and reached a consensus). > >> > >> Best, > >> tison. > >> > >> > >> Zili Chen <[email protected]> 于2019年7月16日周二 上午9:17写道： > >> > >> Hi Justin, > >> > >> Thanks for driving this thread. Please go ahead! > >> > >> One thing I'd like to pick up is that ZOOKEEPER-3431 > >> has a specific description and I'm afraid it could not > >> be an umbrella issue. > >> > >> How about close all checkstyle related issues and start > >> a new issues structure as > >> > >> Umbrella: Enable Google checkstyle configuration > >> Subtask-1: Add silent Google checkstyle configuration > >> Subtask-2: Enable Google checkstyle configuration on zookeeper-server > >> Subtask-3: Enable Google checkstyle configuration on zookeeper-jute > >> Subtask-4: Enable Google checkstyle configuration on > >> zookeeper-prometheus > >> ... > >> > >> Best, > >> tison. > >> > >> > >> Enrico Olivelli <[email protected]> 于2019年7月16日周二 上午12:06写道： > >> > >> Il lun 15 lug 2019, 09:14 Justin Ling Mao <[email protected]> > ha > >> scritto: > >> > >> > - any advance for the discussion???- any objections about these two > >> > things: 1.only clean the main-module:zookeeper-server; > >> > >> > >> Please add jute and Prometheus module > >> > >> 2.using the google's checkstyle_style?- > >> > >> > >> Works for me > >> > >> > who will head it up? how about me？ > >> > > >> > >> Sure! Go for it. Thanks > >> > >> Enrico > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > ----- Original Message ----- > >> > From: "Justin Ling Mao" <[email protected]> > >> > To: "dev" <[email protected]> > >> > Subject: Re: Re: Re: Clean up the all the checkstyle violations in the > >> > zookeeper-server module > >> > Date: 2019-07-07 15:56 > >> > > >> > 1.--->“we'd better first create an umbrella issue named "Enable > >> checkstyle > >> > rules" or sth”I had created ZOOKEEPER-3431 previously, and we can > >> create a > >> > series of sub-tasks under it. > >> > 2.I think we still have two things which should be discussed: 2.1 > >> > Currently, we only need to enforce the checkstyle violations check in > >> the > >> > main-module:zookeeper-server, not included other modules? IMO, > >> because > >> > the zookeeper-contrib, zookeeper-recipes are now not well-maintained. > >> > and some violations in the zookeeper-jute are auto-generated. so > >> focusing > >> > on zookeeper-server is enough? > >> > 2.2 What checkstyle template we will pick up? Now we have three > >> > options: A:[google_style]( > >> > https://checkstyle.sourceforge.io/google_style.html) > >> > B:[bookkeeper_style] ( > >> > > >> > https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/blob/master/buildtools/src/main/resources/bookkeeper/checkstyle.xml > >> ) > >> > C:[hbase_style]( > >> > > >> > https://github.com/apache/hbase/blob/master/hbase-checkstyle/src/main/resources/hbase/checkstyle.xml > >> ) > >> > Which one will we choose? > >> > > >> > > >> > ----- Original Message ----- > >> > From: Enrico Olivelli <[email protected]> > >> > To: [email protected] > >> > Cc: [email protected] > >> > Subject: Re: Re: Clean up the all the checkstyle violations in the > >> > zookeeper-server module > >> > Date: 2019-07-07 15:13 > >> > > >> > Il dom 7 lug 2019, 01:29 Zili Chen <[email protected]> ha scritto: > >> > > Justin & Enrico, > >> > > > >> > > Receiving no opposition on this proposal, we could regard it as > >> > > a consensus. According to bookkeeper#230 we'd better first create > >> > > an umbrella issue named "Enable checkstyle rules" or sth. Under > >> > > there we can finally decide the checkstyle configuration and > >> > > start sub-tasks enabling per package. > >> > > > >> > > For keeping current checkstyle, I'd like to pick up that it's > >> > > possible that we remain the current simple config for all pkgs, > >> > > adding a config said copied from bookkeeper named > >> > > "strict-checkstyle.xml", enabling per pkg, which contains @author > >> > > tags and rules in simple config. Once we enabling the strict one > >> > > for all pkgs. We can merge two configs into one. > >> > > > >> > +1 please go ahead > >> > Enrico > >> > > Best, > >> > > tison. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > Enrico Olivelli <[email protected]> 于2019年7月6日周六 下午8:20写道： > >> > > > >> > > > Justin, > >> > > > This is how we did it in Bookkeeper, we enabled checkstyle only > for > >> > group > >> > > > of packages in the main module (the biggest one, > bookkeeper-server) > >> > > > > >> > > > https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/230 > >> > > > > >> > > > I suggest using that checkstyle config, I feel we won't have so > many > >> > > > violations. > >> > > > > >> > > > We can keep current checkstyle invokation that checks for @author > >> tags > >> > > as a > >> > > > separate 'execution' of the plugin with a specific checkstyle file > >> (as > >> > > you > >> > > > already said) > >> > > > > >> > > > I am happy to help, thank you for driving this effort > >> > > > > >> > > > Enrico > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > Il sab 6 lug 2019, 11:33 Justin Ling Mao < > [email protected] > >> > > >> > ha > >> > > > scritto: > >> > > > > >> > > > > - 1.It seems that we had reached a consensus to work on this.- > 2.I > >> > also > >> > > > > agree on the way: fix one package at a time, then another.- > 3.Now > >> Let > >> > > us > >> > > > > discuss some details: - 3.1 how to make the checkstyle only > >> check > >> > > the > >> > > > > package we specify? I found this: URL: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/26455174/only-enable-some-checks-for-certain-inner-package > >> > > > > @Olivelli Could you give me more your insight? - 3.2 What > >> > rules > >> > > > will > >> > > > > we init in the checkstyle.xml? 3.2.1 - I also think the > >> rules > >> > > from > >> > > > > the hbase is too strict which will cause too many,many > violations. > >> > > > > 3.2.2 - apply the "Google's Java Style Checkstyle Coverage" is > a > >> > good > >> > > > > option? which seems to be more simplify and more suitable for > us? > >> > > > > URL:https://checkstyle.sourceforge.io/google_style.html > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> > > > > From: Andor Molnar <[email protected]> > >> > > > > To: DevZooKeeper <[email protected]> > >> > > > > Subject: Re: Clean up the all the checkstyle violations in the > >> > > > > zookeeper-server module > >> > > > > Date: 2019-07-02 13:22 > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Yes. That way we only need to fix one package at a time. > >> > > > > Andor > >> > > > > On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 4:10 PM Zili Chen <[email protected]> > >> > wrote: > >> > > > > > Hi Andor, > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > To be exact, "iterations" means we define the original rules > >> > > > > > in checkstyle configuration at once and turn them on one > package > >> > > > > > after another, so iterations. Is it correct? > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Best, > >> > > > > > tison. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Andor Molnar <[email protected]> 于2019年7月1日周一 下午9:09写道： > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I like the idea of doing this in iterations. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Andor > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On 2019. Jun 29., at 8:35, Zili Chen < > [email protected]> > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > A solution could be, we remains current simple > configuration > >> > > > > > > > and introduce a so-called "strict-checkstyle.xml" and > apply > >> > > > > > > > it per package. Once we enable it on every package, we can > >> > > > > > > > merge it into the simple configuration. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Best, > >> > > > > > > > tison. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Enrico Olivelli <[email protected]> 于2019年6月29日周六 > >> 下午2:19写道： > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Il sab 29 giu 2019, 07:59 Zili Chen < > [email protected]> > >> ha > >> > > > > > scritto: > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >>> Thank you Enrico. It seems my previous reply delivered > >> > > > > > > >>> into another thread. Repost below. > >> > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > >>> Hi zookeepers, > >> > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > >>> I have proceeded ZOOKEEPER-3446 and been guided to here > >> > > > > > > >>> to discuss for a consensus before any more efforts. > >> > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > >>> In general， +1 on introducing and forcing checkstyle. > >> > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > >>> About the process, I agree that we firstly reach a > >> consensus > >> > > > > > > >>> on the configuration and enable it per package. In order > >> for > >> > > > > > > >>> our contributors to rebase as few times as possible, > we'd > >> > > > > > > >>> better introduce all rules we all agree on at once. Note > >> that > >> > > > > > > >>> we could always add rule if someone ask for and agreed > by > >> the > >> > > > > > > >>> community. > >> > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > >>> Currently, we turn on checkstyle on all modules. > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> This is quite important because we are using inlt in > order > >> to > >> > > > > prevent > >> > > > > > > >> @author tags. > >> > > > > > > >> This was part of the ant based precommit job > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> Enrico > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> Following the > >> > > > > > > >>> process above, we firstly turn off it once we apply the > >> new > >> > > > > > > >>> configuration, and then turn on it per package. > >> > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > >>> If the community is willing to do this work, a JIRA > about > >> the > >> > > new > >> > > > > > > >>> checkstyle configuration should be filed and we continue > >> the > >> > > > > > discussion > >> > > > > > > >>> there. Generally, rules proposed by Enrico are good > start > >> > point > >> > > > and > >> > > > > > > >>> I agree on we should not introduce anything "fancy", but > >> > > > according > >> > > > > to > >> > > > > > > >>> what is actually needed. > >> > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > >>> Best, > >> > > > > > > >>> tison. > >> > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > >>> Enrico Olivelli <[email protected]> 于2019年6月29日周六 > >> > 下午1:51写道： > >> > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > >>>> @Zili Chen > >> > > > > > > >>>> This is the original email thread. So you can answer > >> here. > >> > > > > > > >>>> > >> > > > > > > >>>> Enrico > >> > > > > > > >>>> > >> > > > > > > >>>> Il ven 28 giu 2019, 11:04 Norbert Kalmar > >> > > > > > <[email protected] > >> > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > >>> ha > >> > > > > > > >>>> scritto: > >> > > > > > > >>>> > >> > > > > > > >>>>> Community is eager to jump on on this, we already have > >> pull > >> > > > > > requests > >> > > > > > > >>>>> cleaning up imports :) > >> > > > > > > >>>>> > >> > > > > > > >>>>> First of all, sorry for the late reply (I thought I > >> already > >> > > > > > answered > >> > > > > > > >>>> this, > >> > > > > > > >>>>> I remember reading it and drawing up an answer. Oh > well) > >> > > > > > > >>>>> > >> > > > > > > >>>>> Some big patches are already reviewed, I think we > should > >> > > commit > >> > > > > as > >> > > > > > > >> much > >> > > > > > > >>>> as > >> > > > > > > >>>>> possible before doing this refactor. (I'll also try to > >> rev > >> > up > >> > > > my > >> > > > > > code > >> > > > > > > >>>>> review/commit thread) > >> > > > > > > >>>>> > >> > > > > > > >>>>> As for waiting for 3.6.0 - I don't see the reason we > >> > should. > >> > > > > Unless > >> > > > > > > >> of > >> > > > > > > >>>>> course this would delay the release too much... > >> > > > > > > >>>>> > >> > > > > > > >>>>> I haven't checked HBase checkstyle against our code, I > >> > don't > >> > > > > think > >> > > > > > we > >> > > > > > > >>>>> should introduce anything "fancy". What Enrico listed > up > >> > > sounds > >> > > > > > like > >> > > > > > > >> a > >> > > > > > > >>>> good > >> > > > > > > >>>>> starting point. > >> > > > > > > >>>>> > >> > > > > > > >>>>> +1 on introducing and forcing checkstyle. > >> > > > > > > >>>>> > >> > > > > > > >>>>> Regards, > >> > > > > > > >>>>> Norbert > >> > > > > > > >>>>> > >> > > > > > > >>>>> > >> > > > > > > >>>>> On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 7:27 PM Enrico Olivelli < > >> > > > > > [email protected] > >> > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > >>>>> wrote: > >> > > > > > > >>>>> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> Justin, > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> Thank you so much for your help in this. > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> I would suggest to apply all of the rules in one > pass, > >> > > > splitting > >> > > > > > > >> the > >> > > > > > > >>>> work > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> per package. > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> This way reviews will be easier, we will limit the > >> number > >> > of > >> > > > > > > >> commits > >> > > > > > > >>>> and > >> > > > > > > >>>>> we > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> won't annoy too much the contributors , asking for > hard > >> > > > rebases > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> This is how we did it on Apache Bookkeeper > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/230 > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> I will help review and commit all of your patches, > it > >> > will > >> > > be > >> > > > > > > >>> mostly a > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> matter of code reformat without any behavior change. > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> Currently I am doing the same kind of work on others > >> > > projects > >> > > > of > >> > > > > > my > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> company, so I perfectly know how the work will go. > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> Before starting we must ensure that: > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> 1) community is willing to do this work (we will > force > >> a > >> > > > rebase > >> > > > > on > >> > > > > > > >>>> mostly > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> every pending PR) > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> 2) the proposed configuration is accepted by the > >> community > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> 3) it is the good time to do it, or should we wait > for > >> > 3.6.0 > >> > > > to > >> > > > > be > >> > > > > > > >>> out > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> I see you are referring to hbase checkstyle file, > did > >> > you > >> > > > > > already > >> > > > > > > >>>>> checked > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> how much different it is from current project style? > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> Will we only need to remove trailing spaces, reorder > >> > > members, > >> > > > > fix > >> > > > > > > >>>>> imports, > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> cut long lines ? > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> Cheers > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> Enrico > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> Il dom 23 giu 2019, 15:11 Justin Ling Mao < > >> > > > > > > >> [email protected] > >> > > > > > > >>>> > >> > > > > > > >>>> ha > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> scritto: > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>>> Background:zookeeper-server is the main-module of > the > >> zk > >> > > > > > > >> codebase. > >> > > > > > > >>>>>>> Unfortunately, there were many checkstyle violations > >> in > >> > it. > >> > > > To > >> > > > > > > >>>> improve > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> the > >> > > > > > > >>>>>>> code quality and code standards, > >> > > > > > > >>>>>>> IMHO, it's time to clean up the all the checkstyle > >> > > > > > > >> violations(turn > >> > > > > > > >>> on > >> > > > > > > >>>>> the > >> > > > > > > >>>>>>> <failOnViolation>true</failOnViolation>). we can > learn > >> > from > >> > > > the > >> > > > > > > >>> hbase > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> whose > >> > > > > > > >>>>>>> checkstyle(almost 40+ rules) is very strict and > >> ensures a > >> > > > very > >> > > > > > > >>>> unified > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> code > >> > > > > > > >>>>>>> style.( > >> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> > >> > > > > > > >>>>> > >> > > > > > > >>>> > >> > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > https://github.com/apache/hbase/blob/master/hbase-checkstyle/src/main/resources/hbase/checkstyle.xml > >> > > > > > > >>>>>>> ) > >> > > > > > > >>>>>>> My planing is: clean up the all the checkstyle one > >> rule > >> > by > >> > > > > > > >> another > >> > > > > > > >>> to > >> > > > > > > >>>>>>> avoid too much code changes for review. > >> > > > > > > >>>>>>> Everything's hard in the beginning, I have fired my > >> first > >> > > > shot( > >> > > > > > > >>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/992). > >> > > > > > > >>>>>>> If this draft has accepted by the community, I will > >> > create > >> > > > the > >> > > > > > > >>>>>>> corresponding sub-tasks for more people joining this > >> > work. > >> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>>> Cited the comment from Enrico Olivelli in the > >> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> > >> > > > > > > >>>>> > >> > > > > > > >>>> > >> > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > ZOOKEEPER-3431:--------------------------------------------------------------we > >> > > > > > > >>>>>>> have to discuss this topic with the community.I have > >> > > > experience > >> > > > > > > >> on > >> > > > > > > >>>>>>> BookKeeper, we had to clean up groups of > >> packages.This is > >> > > the > >> > > > > > > >> kind > >> > > > > > > >>> of > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> stuff > >> > > > > > > >>>>>>> that invalidates all of the pending pull requests.I > >> have > >> > > > > already > >> > > > > > > >>> sett > >> > > > > > > >>>>> up > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> a > >> > > > > > > >>>>>>> basic checkstyle configuration file and it is > already > >> > > active > >> > > > > but > >> > > > > > > >> it > >> > > > > > > >>>> is > >> > > > > > > >>>>>>> performing only very basic checks (like no 'author' > >> > tags).I > >> > > > > will > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> appreciate > >> > > > > > > >>>>>>> very much if you want to drive this effort, > >> personally I > >> > > > would > >> > > > > > > >>> start > >> > > > > > > >>>>> this > >> > > > > > > >>>>>>> stuff after 3.6.0 release, once we consolidate > current > >> > > master > >> > > > > and > >> > > > > > > >>> the > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> maven > >> > > > > > > >>>>>>> build. I would have sent an email on the dev@ list > >> > soon.We > >> > > > > also > >> > > > > > > >>> have > >> > > > > > > >>>>> to > >> > > > > > > >>>>>>> agree on the checkstyle configuration, it is not > >> > trivial, I > >> > > > > would > >> > > > > > > >>>> take > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> the > >> > > > > > > >>>>>>> file from HBase, BookKeeper or other ASF projects on > >> the > >> > > > > Haddoop > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> ecosystem. > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> > >> > > > > > > >>>>> > >> > > > > > > >>>> > >> > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >
