Re: Enforce javadoc comments in public methods?

The problem is existing code. I find that if I touch existing code that has a constructor, I am then forced to add a Javadoc on the constructor. Usually this Javadoc is "Constructs XX object." On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 5:07 PM Kenneth Knowles wrote: > Half agree, half disagree > > Disagree: best

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.10.0, release candidate #1

Ah, I did not close the staging repository. Thanks for letting me know. Try now. Kenn On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 2:31 PM Ismaël Mejía wrote: > I think there is an issue, [4] does not open? > > On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 6:24 PM Kenneth Knowles wrote: > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > Please review and

Re: Enforce javadoc comments in public methods?

Half agree, half disagree Disagree: best practice is to make your constructors private and have distinct static methods for various modes of instantiation, which will then require Javadoc. Agree: once they are private no javadoc is needed :-) and there's often only one "most general" constructor

Re: Enforce javadoc comments in public methods?

Fair point. Looking at JavaDocMethod spec [1], unfortunately there is no properties available for this tweak. Let me dig a bit more to see whether this can be done via suppression. [1] http://checkstyle.sourceforge.net/config_javadoc.html#JavadocMethod On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 4:36 PM Reuven Lax

Re: Enforce javadoc comments in public methods?

This appears to be forcing us to set javadoc on constructors as well, which is usually pointless. Can we exclude constructor methods from this check? On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 5:40 PM Ruoyun Huang wrote: > Our recent change is on "JavaDocMethod", which not turned on yet. Not > relevant to this

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.10.0, release candidate #1

I think there is an issue, [4] does not open? On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 6:24 PM Kenneth Knowles wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the version 2.10.0, as > follows: > > [ ] +1, Approve the release > [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide

Re: compileJava broken on master see: BEAM-6495

If it continues to occur, maybe it is an environmental issue, be sure to try to clean as well. ./gradlew clean On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 11:12 AM Ryan Williams wrote: > Yea I was rebased on top of a more recent master than your previous > message, when I saw it again. Perhaps I was mistaken. I'll

Re: Beam Dependency Check Report (2018-06-13)

Looking at the latest report for January 28, there are lots of stale dependencies. Their associated JIRAs are open for more than 3 months in some cases. We have a decent policy and tooling to support that, but we are not following up on those with actions. How could we keep the identified stale

Re: compileJava broken on master see: BEAM-6495

Yea I was rebased on top of a more recent master than your previous message, when I saw it again. Perhaps I was mistaken. I'll ping here if I see it again, thanks. On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 1:52 PM Alex Amato wrote: > After I did a rebase, it went away for me. So I think that this should > work.

Re: compileJava broken on master see: BEAM-6495

After I did a rebase, it went away for me. So I think that this should work. Are you saying that you did rebase ontop of master and it still occurred? Strange. On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 3:48 PM Ryan Williams wrote: > Hm, I just encountered this again on a branch that based on 5b46b02b49 > (top of

Re: The full list of proposals / prototype documents

First step probably is to make mandatory to add the document to the design documents page before sending it to the mailing list for discussion. On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 6:13 PM Maximilian Michels wrote: > > This is awesome. Thank you for creating this page Alexey! I found some > documents >

Re: Beam Dependency Check Report (2018-06-13)

Hi, You're looking at the old versions dependency bugs which were created before Oct, 2018 (e.g BEAM-4904 ). Based on the discussion [1]

[VOTE] Release 2.10.0, release candidate #1

Hi everyone, Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the version 2.10.0, as follows: [ ] +1, Approve the release [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific comments) The complete staging area is available for your review, which includes: * JIRA release notes [1],

Re: [Proposal] Requesting PMC approval to start planning for Beam Summits 2019

Was this intended to be a private document only for the PMC? I think it would be ok to share it with everyone. @Joana Just pinging in case you didn't see this on the mailing list. Thanks, Max On 26.01.19 17:19, Thomas Weise wrote: The document isn't accessible, please open for comments. On

Re: The full list of proposals / prototype documents

This is awesome. Thank you for creating this page Alexey! I found some documents which I missed in the past. I wonder if we could make it easier to maintain the page? If design docs were in the Wiki, it would be trivial to maintain such a list. Obviously the Google Docs are great for

Re: [DISCUSSION] UTests and embedded backends

Hi Robert, Yes, this is something I really believe in: test coverage offered by embedded instances are worth some temporary flakiness (due to resource over consumption). I also deeply agree with your point on maintenance: some mocks could hide bugs in production code that would cost a lot in the

Re: Beam Dependency Check Report (2018-06-13)

Hello, The dependency update report has been working fine. However I found some issues that I summarized in this issue. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-6524 Can Yifan or someone else that knows that area please take a look. Regards, Ismaël On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 11:37 PM Yifan Zou

Re: [ANNOUNCE] New committer announcement: Gleb Kanterov

Well done Gleb! On 28.01.19 14:27, Łukasz Gajowy wrote: Congrats and welcome! :) pon., 28 sty 2019 o 12:01 Gleb Kanterov > napisał(a): Thanks to everyone for a warm welcome! Happy to be part of the community. On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 4:43 AM Thomas Weise

Re: [ANNOUNCE] New PMC member: Etienne Chauchot

Thanks for your great work and congratulations! :) pon., 28 sty 2019 o 12:01 Gleb Kanterov napisał(a): > Congratulations Etienne! > > > On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 11:36 AM Maximilian Michels > wrote: > >> Congrats Etienne! It's been great to work with you. >> >> On 26.01.19 07:16, Ismaël Mejía

Re: [ANNOUNCE] New committer announcement: Gleb Kanterov

Congrats and welcome! :) pon., 28 sty 2019 o 12:01 Gleb Kanterov napisał(a): > Thanks to everyone for a warm welcome! Happy to be part of the community. > > On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 4:43 AM Thomas Weise wrote: > >> Congrats! >> >> On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 7:19 PM Reza Ardeshir Rokni >> wrote:

Re: BEAM-6324 / #7340: "I've pretty much given up on the PR being merged. I use my own fork for my projects"

IMHO, I don't think committers spend time watching new PRs coming up, but they more likely act when pinged. So, we may need some automation in case a contributor do not use github reviewed proposal. Auto reviewer assignment seem too much but modifying the PR template to add a sentence such as

Beam Dependency Check Report (2019-01-28)

High Priority Dependency Updates Of Beam Python SDK: Dependency Name Current Version Latest Version Release Date Of the Current Used Version Release Date Of The Latest Release JIRA Issue future 0.16.0 0.17.1 2016-10-27

BigQuery TimePartitioning IT

Hey all, For my BigQuery clustering PR I wrote an integration test to test time partitioning and clustering [1]. Can anyone create the “BigQueryTimePartitioningIT” dataset in the beam testing project (apache-beam-testing)? Or is dataset creation included somehow in the gradle setup? Thanks,

Re: [ANNOUNCE] New PMC member: Etienne Chauchot

Congratulations Etienne! On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 11:36 AM Maximilian Michels wrote: > Congrats Etienne! It's been great to work with you. > > On 26.01.19 07:16, Ismaël Mejía wrote: > > Congratulations Etienne! > > > > Le sam. 26 janv. 2019 à 06:42, Reuven Lax > > a

Re: [ANNOUNCE] New committer announcement: Gleb Kanterov

Thanks to everyone for a warm welcome! Happy to be part of the community. On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 4:43 AM Thomas Weise wrote: > Congrats! > > On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 7:19 PM Reza Ardeshir Rokni > wrote: > >> Congratulations! >> >> On Sat, 26 Jan 2019 at 13:50, Pablo Estrada wrote: >> >>>

Re: [DISCUSSION] UTests and embedded backends

I strongly agree with your original assessment "IMHO I believe that having embedded backend for UTests are a lot better than mocks." Mocks are sometimes necessary, but in my experience they are often an expensive (in production and maintenance) way to get what amounts to low true coverage. On

Re: [ANNOUNCE] New PMC member: Etienne Chauchot

Congrats Etienne! It's been great to work with you. On 26.01.19 07:16, Ismaël Mejía wrote: Congratulations Etienne! Le sam. 26 janv. 2019 à 06:42, Reuven Lax > a écrit : Welcome! On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 9:30 PM Pablo Estrada mailto:pabl...@google.com>>

Re: [ANNOUNCE] New PMC member: Etienne Chauchot

Thanks for all your great work. Congratulations and welcome! On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 10:21 AM Alexey Romanenko wrote: > > Great job! Congrats, Etienne! > > On 28 Jan 2019, at 07:18, Ahmet Altay wrote: > > Congratulations Etienne! > > On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 7:15 PM Reza Ardeshir Rokni wrote:

Re: BEAM-6324 / #7340: "I've pretty much given up on the PR being merged. I use my own fork for my projects"

On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 10:37 AM Etienne Chauchot wrote: > > Sure it's a pity than this PR got unnoticed and I think it is a combination > of factors (PR date around Christmas, the fact that the author forgot - AFAIK > - to ping a reviewer in either the PR or the ML). > > I agree with Rui's

Re: [DISCUSSION] UTests and embedded backends

Guys, I will try using mocks where I see it is needed. As there is a current PR opened on Cassandra, I will take this opportunity to add the embedded cassandra server (https://github.com/jsevellec/cassandra-unit) to the UTests.Ticket was opened while ago:

Re: BEAM-6324 / #7340: "I've pretty much given up on the PR being merged. I use my own fork for my projects"

Sure it's a pity than this PR got unnoticed and I think it is a combination of factors (PR date around Christmas, the fact that the author forgot - AFAIK - to ping a reviewer in either the PR or the ML). I agree with Rui's proposal to enhance visibility of the "how to get a reviewed" process.

Re: [ANNOUNCE] New PMC member: Etienne Chauchot

Great job! Congrats, Etienne! > On 28 Jan 2019, at 07:18, Ahmet Altay wrote: > > Congratulations Etienne! > > On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 7:15 PM Reza Ardeshir Rokni > wrote: > Congratulations Etienne! > > On Sat, 26 Jan 2019 at 14:16, Ismaël Mejía