[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-8996?focusedWorklogId=361670&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:worklog-tabpanel#worklog-361670
]
ASF GitHub Bot logged work on BEAM-8996:
----------------------------------------
Author: ASF GitHub Bot
Created on: 20/Dec/19 14:22
Start Date: 20/Dec/19 14:22
Worklog Time Spent: 10m
Work Description: lgajowy commented on issue #10424: [BEAM-8996]
Auto-generate pipeline options documentation for FlinkRunner
URL: https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/10424#issuecomment-567941262
Please don't get me the wrong way - I really think this is a good change
and I believe that in my comments I suggested improvements not only to
style but also to functionality (template vs generating code using
system.out.println). I wouldn't say those are subjective. What is more, in
my opinion, after a review round or two we could get even more value from
this pr.
The reason why I think merging this should wait for the reviewer's approval
(not necessarily mine) is that it would prevent missunderstandings like the
one we have right now. I agree this is not "mission critical" code but I
still think we shouldn't judge that on our own.
pt., 20 gru 2019, 14:44 użytkownik Maximilian Michels <
[email protected]> napisał:
> I thought I had addressed all your comments. That's why I merged. The only
> open discussion point seems to resolve about code style, which can be
> subjective. I definitely always check if any blockers are still open before
> merging. I merged fast here, though there was sufficient time for the
> reviewers.
>
> Please consider, this is not a mission-critical code path. I'm not
> changing anything related to the Beam runtime. This just generates docs
> which always became outdated before. I'm essentially doing this on the side
> and if the review discussion is only about code style, I don't see a reason
> to block this in case of an isolated class, which is solely used to
> generate a table in the documentation.
>
> While I'm also guilty of this occasionally, it is worth to take a step
> back and take a look at the value of a change, instead of insisting on
> details, which might make it better subjectively, but do not provide more
> value, or even increase the maintenance costs. I believe I've just recently
> reviewed some of your PRs, where I tried to live up to that standards.
>
> —
> You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
>
<https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/10424?email_source=notifications&email_token=AAOXWDMNZQVKZD2DBUCOW43QZTD4VA5CNFSM4J5HDT7KYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOEHM6RRQ#issuecomment-567929030>,
> or unsubscribe
>
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAOXWDOZ6JLH5ZS5V2KZ7FLQZTD4VANCNFSM4J5HDT7A>
> .
>
----------------------------------------------------------------
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
Issue Time Tracking
-------------------
Worklog Id: (was: 361670)
Time Spent: 3.5h (was: 3h 20m)
> Auto-generate pipeline options documentation for FlinkRunner
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: BEAM-8996
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-8996
> Project: Beam
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: runner-flink
> Reporter: Maximilian Michels
> Assignee: Maximilian Michels
> Priority: Major
> Fix For: 2.19.0
>
> Time Spent: 3.5h
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> The documentation on the pipeline options on the [runner
> page|https://beam.apache.org/documentation/runners/flink/] easily becomes
> outdated. In order for them to stay up to date, we should auto-generate the
> documentation from the {{FlinkPipelineOptions}} class. This should be done
> for both Java and Python.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
