Re: Code inspection

t; > > > > > config); > > > > > > - add a new checkstyle plugin configuration file (checkstyle.xml > > > > > > config) which will be used simultaneously for checking code style on > > > > > > build procedure and for the IDE-checkstyle plugin; > > >

Re: Code inspection

> > > On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 at 21:23, Vyacheslav Daradur < > > daradu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Maxim, > > > > > > > > > > > > I looked through the PR and it looks good to me in general

Re: Code inspection

> > > > > Maxim, > > > > > > > > > > I looked through the PR and it looks good to me in general. > > > > > > > > > > The only question how it's planned to maintain check styles in 2 > > > > > different configurations, f

Re: Code inspection

; > > > practices like checkstyle plugin (380K usages on github repositories) > > > > > rather than proprietary software. So, we will: > > > > > - keep IDE level inspection configuration (the Project_Default.xml > > > > > config); > >

Re: Code inspection

t; - add a new checkstyle plugin configuration file (checkstyle.xml > >>> config) which will be used simultaneously for checking code style on > >>> build procedure and for the IDE-checkstyle plugin; > >>> > >>> On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 at 21:23, Vyacheslav Darad

Re: Code inspection

lav Daradur >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Maxim, >>> >>> I looked through the PR and it looks good to me in general. >>> >>> The only question how it's planned to maintain check styles in 2 >>> different configurations, f

Re: Code inspection

ned to maintain check styles in 2 >> different configurations, for IDEA and check style plugin? >> >> On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 12:30 PM Maxim Muzafarov wrote: >> >> >> Igniters, >> >> The issue [1] with enabled maven-checkstyle-plugin is

Re: Code inspection

ready for the review. > All changes are prepared according to e-mail [2] the second option > point (include the plugin in the maven build procedure by default). > > JIRA: IGNITE-11277 [1] > PR: [3] > Upsource: [4] > > How can take a look? > > [1] https://issues.apa

Re: Code inspection

t; On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 12:30 PM Maxim Muzafarov >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Igniters, >>>>> >>>>> The issue [1] with enabled maven-checkstyle-plugin is ready for the >>>>> review. >>>>> All chan

Re: Code inspection

in 2 > > > > different configurations, for IDEA and check style plugin? > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 12:30 PM Maxim Muzafarov > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Igniters, > > > > > > > &g

Re: Code inspection

t; > > > > > Igniters, > > > > > > > > The issue [1] with enabled maven-checkstyle-plugin is ready for the > > > > review. > > > > All changes are prepared according to e-mail [2] the second option > > > > point (include

Re: Code inspection

second option > > > point (include the plugin in the maven build procedure by default). > > > > > > JIRA: IGNITE-11277 [1] > > > PR: [3] > > > Upsource: [4] > > > > > > How can take a look? > > > > > > [1] https://issues

Re: Code inspection

; > JIRA: IGNITE-11277 [1] > > PR: [3] > > Upsource: [4] > > > > How can take a look? > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11277 > > [2] > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Code-inspection-tp27709p41297.h

Re: Code inspection

k? > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11277 > [2] > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Code-inspection-tp27709p41297.html > [3] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/6119 > [4] https://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-1018 &

Re: Code inspection

] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11277 [2] http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Code-inspection-tp27709p41297.html [3] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/6119 [4] https://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-1018 On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 at 19:19, Dmitriy Pavlov

Re: Code inspection

Dmitriy, Benefits of using maven checkstyle plugin against IDEA-TC integration were discussed above. IMHO there is a one crucial thing. IDEA-TC integeration have been broken for a months without any good reason. We cannot be sure that the same will not repeat again. пт, 15 мар. 2019 г. в 19:19,

Re: Code inspection

Hi Igniters, I see that a new TeamCity is released: Version: 2018.2.3. Probably it could solve recently introduced problem related to: Unexpected error during build messages processing in TeamCity; Peter I., could you please check? Sincerely, Dmitriy Pavlov пт, 15 мар. 2019 г. в 12:04,

Re: Code inspection

I agree to gather some votes according to Maxim's proposal. Personally, I will not put my vote here. Both options will work for me today. But I would like to say a bit about agility. As I said both options sounds fine for me today. And I believe that we can switch from one to another easily in

Re: Code inspection

Maxim, > As far as I understand your case, you want to fix all code styles issues right before getting the final TC results. Right? ... Actually, I mostly worry about accidental failures. For simple tasks my workflow looks like: 1. Create a branch. 2. Write some code lines and tests. 3. Run the

Re: Code inspection

+1 to enable code style checks in compile time. We can add option to disable maven codestyle profile with some environment variable. Anyone who want violate common project rules in their local branch can set this variable and write some nasty code before push :) пт, 15 марта 2019 г., 9:40 Maxim

Re: Code inspection

Ivan, > 1. I can write code and execute tests successfully even if there are some style problems. I can imagine that a style error can arise occasionally. And instead of getting test results after several hours I will get a build failure without any tests run. I will simply lose my time. But if

Re: Code inspection

Ivan, Let's take a look at all the options we have (ordered by the frequency of use): 1. Check ready for merge branches (main case) 2. Run tests on TC without checkstyle (prototyping branches) 3. Local project build 4. Quick build without any additional actions on TC In the other projects

Re: Code inspection

Ivan, I like that Jetbrains inspections are integrated with IDE and TC out of the box, but currently, they are working not well enough on TC. Actually, they are not checking our source code at all. Let's try a bit another approach and try to be IDE-agnostic with code style checking. I've checked

Re: Code inspection

Nikolay, > All community members are forced to follow code style. It's harder to achieve > it with dedicated suite. Why it is easier to follow code style with use of maven checkstyle plugin? Is it integrated into IDEA out of box? As I got it additional IDEA plugin is needed as well. Who will

Re: Code inspection

Ivan, > Could you please outline the benefits you see of failing compilation and skipping tests execution if inspections detect a problem? All community members are forced to follow code style. It's harder to achieve it with dedicated suite. чт, 14 февр. 2019 г. в 15:21, Павлухин Иван : >

Re: Code inspection

Nikolay, > Should the community spend TC resources for prototype? Why not? I think it is not bad idea to run all tests against some changes into core classes. If I have a clever idea which is easy to test drive I can do couple of prototype-test iterations. If tests shows me that everything is

Re: Code inspection

Hello, Ivan. > Requirements for a prototype code are not the same as for a patch ready to merge True. > I do not see much need in writing good javadocs for prototype. We, as a community, can't force you to do it. > Why should I stub it to be able run any build on TC? Should the community

Re: Code inspection

Maxim, Oh, my poor tabs.. Joke. I am totally ok with currently enabled checks. But I am mostly concerned about a general approach. I would like to outline one thing. Requirements for a prototype code are not the same as for a patch ready to merge (see a little bit more in the end of that

Re: Code inspection

Ivan, As the first implementation of this addition, I'd prefer to make it working like _Licenses Headers_ suite check. It will fail when some of the code style checks violated. Moreover, these licenses header checks can be included in the checkstyle plugin configuration. In general, I'd prefer

Re: Code inspection

Actually, I dont see anything wrong with failing *compilation* task. I think one should use project code style for everyday coding, not only for ready-to-merge PRs. If we cant use code style for everyday coding, we should change the codestyle. What do you think? ср, 13 февр. 2019 г., 10:11

Re: Code inspection

I guess that was about failing build configuration with Checkstype, not compilation build itself. > On 12 Feb 2019, at 18:03, Павлухин Иван wrote: > > Folks, > > Are you going to fail job compiling Ignite sources [1] if some > inspection found a problem? Can we avoid it? It is quite common >

Re: Code inspection

Folks, Are you going to fail job compiling Ignite sources [1] if some inspection found a problem? Can we avoid it? It is quite common pattern to start some feature implementation with making a sketch and running tests against it. I found it convenient to skip some style requirements for such

Re: Code inspection

Petr, we should have 1 configuration for project, may be 1 configuration per programming language. пн, 11 февр. 2019 г., 11:33 Petr Ivanov mr.wei...@gmail.com: > I was asking about how many build configuration is intended? One for all > and multiple per module? > > With IDEA inspections it was

Re: Code inspection

I was asking about how many build configuration is intended? One for all and multiple per module? With IDEA inspections it was going to be build configuration per module. > On 11 Feb 2019, at 11:24, Nikolay Izhikov wrote: > > Hello, Petr. > > Are you saying that we have not single build

Re: Code inspection

Hello, Petr. Are you saying that we have not single build task? And each module builds when it required? If yes, then I propose to create a task like "Licence check" which will be run for every patch. My point is that violation of codestyle should be treated as hard as compile error. пн, 11

Re: Code inspection

Is build configuration Inspections [Core] meant to transform into single all-modules check build configuration (without module subdivision)? > On 11 Feb 2019, at 11:02, Nikolay Izhikov wrote: > > Hello, Maxim. > > +1 from me for migrating to checkstyle. > > Oleg, there is plugin for IDEA

Re: Code inspection

Hello, Maxim. +1 from me for migrating to checkstyle. Oleg, there is plugin for IDEA with 2mln downloads - https://plugins.jetbrains.com/plugin/1065-checkstyle-idea I propose do the following: 1. Migrate current checks to checkstyle. 2. Apply checks to all Ignite modules. Currently, only core

Re: Code inspection

Hi, I also think that some warning from IDEA that some code style rule is violated is a must-have. вс, 10 февр. 2019 г. в 01:58, oignatenko : > > Hi Maxim, > > I believe that whatever style checks we establish at Teamcity, we better > take care of making it easy for developers to find and fix

Re: Code inspection

Hi Maxim, I believe that whatever style checks we establish at Teamcity, we better take care of making it easy for developers to find and fix violations in their typical dev environment (for Ignite this means, in IDEA). I think it is important that developers can maintain required style with

Re: Code inspection

Igniters, I've found that some of the community members have faced with `[Inspections] Core suite [1]` is not working well enough on TC. The suite has a `FAILED` status for more than 2 months due to some issues in TeamCity application [2]. Current suite behaviour confuses not only new

Re: Code inspection

It seems there is bug in latest 2018.2 TeamCity Bug is filed [1] [1] https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/TW-58504 > On 19 Dec 2018, at 11:31, Petr Ivanov wrote: > > Investigating problem, stand by. > > >> On 18 Dec 2018, at 19:41, Dmitriy Pavlov wrote: >> >> Both patches were applied.

Re: Code inspection

Investigating problem, stand by. > On 18 Dec 2018, at 19:41, Dmitriy Pavlov wrote: > > Both patches were applied. Maxim, thank you! > > What about 1. An `Unexpected error during build messages processing in > TeamCity`, what can we do as the next step to fix it? > > Sincerely, > Dmitriy

Re: Code inspection

Both patches were applied. Maxim, thank you! What about 1. An `Unexpected error during build messages processing in TeamCity`, what can we do as the next step to fix it? Sincerely, Dmitriy Pavlov пн, 17 дек. 2018 г. в 18:31, Andrey Mashenkov : > Maxim, > > Looks ok. Let's apply IGNITE-10682. >

Re: Code inspection

Maxim, Looks ok. Let's apply IGNITE-10682. All, Also, I'd like to publish idea.logs into artefacts by default. This will give us more details for investigation in future if any failure will occurs. It will costs 1-10 kB. On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 3:21 PM Maxim Muzafarov wrote: > Dmitry, > > It

Re: Code inspection

Dmitry, It seems to me that we have two independent issues here. 1. An `Unexpected error during build messages processing in TeamCity` error message which is related to TC agent configuration. Suppose, server.log will provide us more details about it. I have to access there. 2. A new set of

Re: Code inspection

Folks, There is a strange error on TC https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=2556875=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore It appeared after TC update to the latest version. Sincerely, Dmitry Pavlov пт, 14 дек. 2018 г. в 16:09, Andrey Mashenkov : > Maxim, > > PR is incomplete. Some

Re: Code inspection

Maxim, PR is incomplete. Some plugins should be disabled with different id\name. Maven plugin shouldn't be disabled as Idea Inspector use it to use Ignite project pom file. Please, find details in ticket. On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 12:00 PM Andrey Mashenkov < andrey.mashen...@gmail.com> wrote: >

Re: Code inspection

Maxim, Thanks, I'll check PR and let you know about results. For now, Inspections task execution time looks much better (15-22 min), but fluctuation is still noticeable. On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 11:13 AM Maxim Muzafarov wrote: > Andrey, > > Thanks! I've consulted with the IntelliJ IDEA source

Re: Code inspection

Andrey, Thanks! I've consulted with the IntelliJ IDEA source code and found how this disabled plugins file should look like. I've created a new issue [1] and prepared PR [2] with the set of disabled plugins (maybe not complete set). I don't have access to change corresponding `~Excluded

Re: Code inspection

Maxim, Idea has a file in config directory ./config/disabled_plugins.txt , you can easily find it at you local machine. Teamcity Inspections runner has an option "Disabled plugins" where disabled_plugins.txt file content can be set. So, looks like we can disable useless plugins. But I'm not

Re: Code inspection

Andrey, Thank you for solving this issue with GC pauses! I've checked the given report. The inspections configuration is correct, but it seems to me that we have enabled by default rules of included plugins (for instance, KotlinInternalInJava in the report is enabled). Can you share more details

Re: Code inspection

Maxim, It looks like we can't make logs more verbose due to possible bug, I've create a ticket in Jetbrains Jira [1]. We can just publish idea logs in artefacts as suggested in this manual [2]. For now, Inspections logs looks like this one [3]. Also, would you please to take a look at inspection

Re: Code inspection

Maxim M, do you know if we can disable inspections by wildcard? E.g. Android* ? чт, 13 дек. 2018 г. в 14:59, Andrey Mashenkov : > Fixed memory issues with increasing heap size and forcing G1GC. > > Do we need all these plugins loaded for inspections? > I've found a 'disable plugin' option in TC

Re: Code inspection

Fixed memory issues with increasing heap size and forcing G1GC. Do we need all these plugins loaded for inspections? I've found a 'disable plugin' option in TC Inspections build configuration, but it is unclear how to disable plugin correctly. Can someone take over this? > 46 plugins initialized

Re: Code inspection

Sure, let's apply. I hope all TC agents may handle 4G heap. чт, 13 дек. 2018 г. в 12:54, Andrey Mashenkov : > Guys, > > I've just creates a copy of Inspections TC build task with GC logs turned > on to check if there is any issues > and found Inspections task spent too much time in STW due to

Re: Code inspection

Guys, I've just creates a copy of Inspections TC build task with GC logs turned on to check if there is any issues and found Inspections task spent too much time in STW due to long Full GC pauses. I've tried to increase Xmx up to 4Gb and use G1GC got 2+ times better execution time down to ~15

Re: Code inspection

Hi, Maxim, Nikolay, I have the following questions regarding inspections: Should 'gnite_inspections_teamcity.xml' been imported into IDEA, since 'ignite_inspections.xml' has been removed in actual master? Also, I've faced mismatching: if I use '@SuppressWarnings("ErrorNotRethrown")' in code,

Re: Code inspection

Hi, Have someone tried to investigate the issue related to Inspection TC task execution time variation (from 0.5 up to 1,5 hours)? Can we enable GC logs for this task or may be even get CPU, Disk, Network metrics? Can someone check if there are unnecessary Idea plugins starts that can be safely

Re: Code inspection

I'm totally with you in this decision, let's move the file. вт, 27 нояб. 2018 г. в 16:24, Maxim Muzafarov : > Igniters, > > I propose to make inspection configuration default on the project > level. I've created a new issue [1] for it. It can be easily done and > recommend by IntelliJ

Re: Code inspection

Igniters, I propose to make inspection configuration default on the project level. I've created a new issue [1] for it. It can be easily done and recommend by IntelliJ documentation [2]. Thoughts? Vyacheslav, Can you share an example of your warnings? Currently, we have different inspection

Re: Code inspection

Hello, Vyacheslav. Yes, we have. Maxim Muzafarov, can you fix it, please? вт, 20 нояб. 2018 г., 13:10 Vyacheslav Daradur daradu...@gmail.com: > Guys, why we have 2 different inspection files in the repo? > idea\ignite_inspections.xml > idea\ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml > > AFAIK TeamCity is

Re: Code inspection

Guys, why we have 2 different inspection files in the repo? idea\ignite_inspections.xml idea\ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml AFAIK TeamCity is able to use the same inspection file with IDE. I've imported 'idea\ignite_inspections.xml' in the IDE, but now see inspection warnings for my PR on TC

Re: Code inspection

Yakov, Dmitry, Which example of unsuccessful suite execution do we need? Does the current fail [1] in the master branch enough to configure notifications by TC.Bot? > Please consider adding more checks > - line endings. I think we should only have \n > - ensure blank line at the end of file It

Re: Code inspection

Igniters, Since the inspection rules are included in RunAll a few members of the community mentioned a wide distributed execution time on TC agents: - 1h:27m:38s publicagent17_9094 - 38m:04s publicagent17_9094 - 33m:29s publicagent17_9094 - 17m:13s publicagent17_9094 It seems that we should

Re: Code inspection

Hi Maxim, thank you for your efforts to make this happen. Keep the pace! Could you please provide an example of how Inspections can fail, so I or another contributor could implement support of these failures validation in the Tc Bot. Sincerely, Dmitriy Pavlov пт, 26 окт. 2018 г. в 18:27,

Re: Code inspection

Maxim, Thanks for response, let's do it the way you suggested. Please consider adding more checks - line endings. I think we should only have \n - ensure blank line in the end of file All these are code reviews issues I pointed out many times when reviewing conributions. It would be cool if we

Re: Code inspection

Pert, > As new way of testing code, this process will take it’s time to become common, and then there will be no obsolete branches. I tend to agree with you. Let's stabilize the solution first. Yakov, > Maxim, what are our next steps? Can we add check for > - line length > - indents (tabs vs

Re: Code inspection

Also, let me note that currently only modules/core/** is under inspection. And in spite of the fact that core is the “heaviest" module in project. it seems that adding new inspections should be 2-way: new inspections and new modules (builds). > On 26 Oct 2018, at 17:41, Yakov Zhdanov wrote: >

Re: Code inspection

Agree with Petr. Maxim, what are our next steps? Can we add check for - line length - indents (tabs vs spaces) This may require some efforts (will it and how much?), but can we add check for: - log messages structure - log.warn() vs U.warn() - abbreviations for local variables and fields. And

Re: Code inspection

> On 26 Oct 2018, at 12:02, Maxim Muzafarov wrote: > > Petr, > >> Disclaimer: currently, on branches with no inspections file there is > default inspections file with all inspections turned off > > I'd suggest another approach: > - we should use the default inspection configuration file

Re: Code inspection

Petr, > Disclaimer: currently, on branches with no inspections file there is default inspections file with all inspections turned off I'd suggest another approach: - we should use the default inspection configuration file only for old release branches like (2.5, 2.6 etc.); - the other branches

Re: Code inspection

Hello, Maxim! Good job! пт, 26 окт. 2018 г. в 0:47, Maxim Muzafarov : > Igniters, > > The new `Inspections: Core` suite [2] configured on TeamCity (pass > successfully with - Inspections total: 0, errors: 0 ). > The next rules are enabled for this suite: > - `Missorted modifiers`; > -

Re: Code inspection

Added -> Run :: IntelliJ IDEA Inspections [1] to Run All Disclaimer: currently, on branches with no inspections file there is default inspections file with all inspections turned off [1] https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_RunIntelliJIdeaInspections > On

Re: Code inspection

+1 On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 9:45 AM Nikolay Izhikov wrote: > Hello, Maxim. > > Great job! Thank you! > Igniters, let's add this suite to the Run All! > > It can help us improve code quality and check code style without human > eyes. > > > В Пт, 26/10/2018 в 00:47 +0300, Maxim Muzafarov пишет: >

Re: Code inspection

Hello, Maxim. Great job! Thank you! Igniters, let's add this suite to the Run All! It can help us improve code quality and check code style without human eyes. В Пт, 26/10/2018 в 00:47 +0300, Maxim Muzafarov пишет: > Igniters, > > The new `Inspections: Core` suite [2] configured on TeamCity

Re: Code inspection

Igniters, The new `Inspections: Core` suite [2] configured on TeamCity (pass successfully with - Inspections total: 0, errors: 0 ). The next rules are enabled for this suite: - `Missorted modifiers`; - `'size() == 0' replaceable with 'isEmpty()'`; - `Add missing @Override annotation`; - `Fix

Re: Code inspection

Hello, Maxim. +1 from me. I vote to enable static inspections for the Ignite codebase. Thank you for that contributions! В Вт, 23/10/2018 в 19:09 +0300, Maxim Muzafarov пишет: > Igniters, > > I've fixed some issues according to the inspections.xml configuration: > - `Missorted modifiers`; >

Re: Code inspection

Igniters, I've fixed some issues according to the inspections.xml configuration: - `Missorted modifiers`; - `'size() == 0' replaceable with 'isEmpty()'`; - `Add missing @Override annotation`; These one have `In progress` state: - `Fix unused imports`; - `Remove unnecessary @SuppressWarnings

Re: Code inspection

IntelliJ Idea shows missing @Override annotation on my installation. Not sure it comes from our inspection or not. Anyway, count on me. пт, 24 авг. 2018 г. в 9:25, Maxim Muzafarov : > Folks, > > I think we can make a small step further with Ignite Inspections. > > I've created these tickets

Re: Code inspection

Folks, I think we can make a small step further with Ignite Inspections. I've created these tickets [1], [2] for myself according to previously added `idea/ignite_inspections.xml` and I plan to complete them. Who will help me with review and merge? [1]

Re: Code inspection

Hi Pavel, Thank you for noticing and bringing it here. I've fixed TC failure. Sincerely, Dmitriy Pavlov чт, 16 авг. 2018 г. в 0:10, Pavel Pereslegin : > Hello Igniters. > > It seems that "idea/ignite_inspections.xml" should be excluded from > "check-licenses" maven profile, because "_Licenses

Re: Code inspection

Hello Igniters. It seems that "idea/ignite_inspections.xml" should be excluded from "check-licenses" maven profile, because "_Licenses Headers_" configuration always fails now [1] on TeamCity. [1]

Re: Code inspection

Hi Maxim, Thank you for stepping in. I've committed the first version here 'idea/ignite_inspections.xml'. We can move it to project default later when all inspection problems are fixed. Commit:

Re: Code inspection

Dmitry and other Igniters, Previously you has suggested to commit `Code Inspections` into Ignite codebase. It makes sense for me. I think it's the easiest way to share this profile among community members and this inspection can be set as for the project level. So, I suggest: 1) According to

Re: Code inspection

Hi Dmitriy Govoruknin, It seems there is a lack of volunteers to apply code inspections to our CI & patch submission process. Probably we could come back to your initial idea about setting up inspection locally. Could you commit or share your IDEA inspection settings? I could apply it at least

Re: Code inspection

Ideally, I should not asking for people to solve something for me. I just want this idea did not disappear from our radar. пт, 3 авг. 2018 г. в 23:47, Dmitriy Setrakyan : > On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 7:49 AM, Dmitriy Pavlov > wrote: > > > > > I understand it is not so Apache-way from my side to

Re: Code inspection

On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 7:49 AM, Dmitriy Pavlov wrote: > > I understand it is not so Apache-way from my side to ask volunteers to do > some things (instead of contributing it by myself). Dmitriy, I am not sure why you feel this is not the Apache way. No one can do everything themselves. You

Re: Code inspection

Hi Igniters, I understand it is not so Apache-way from my side to ask volunteers to do some things (instead of contributing it by myself). But I still interested - if we need code inspection or not, - and who would like to spend odd hour and sett up some regular/manual scans. Sincerely, Dmitriy

Re: Code inspection

Hi, Dmitry! To me, it's better to disable the following: Unnecessary 'this' qualifier -- this will, for example, warn on well-formed constructors. 'if' statement could be replaced with conditional expression -- let's decide on common sense basis whether it's appropriate, forceful refactorings

Re: Code inspection

Bumping up. Igniters, please reply and provide feedback on inspections settings. I really prefer that we will merge inspections to codebase with clear acknowledgment from active community members. чт, 29 мар. 2018 г. в 12:03, Alexey Goncharuk : > From what I see, it

Re: Code inspection

>From what I see, it should be rather easy to get a meaningful number of inspection failures to get something we can start working with. Namely, we have: Overly strong type cast (206) - mechanical work, easy to fix Assignment replaceable with operator assignment (23) - either mechanical work, or

Re: Code inspection

Anton, Dmitry is right. We have to manually add condition when to consider build faulty based on how many failed inspection are there. For now I see this initiative as follows: - find more or less correct set of inspections (there are lots of typos and other irrelevant to code execution

Re: Code inspection

Inspection suites should be failed manually by some fail condition. This question will become actual in future. How to fail such suite on TC? ср, 28 мар. 2018 г. в 18:54, Anton Vinogradov : > Peter, > > Why 44 errors are green? > > >

Re: Code inspection

Peter, Why 44 errors are green? https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1145974=buildResultsDiv=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsAop 2018-03-28 16:27 GMT+03:00 Petr Ivanov : > After several problems, example run on Aleksey’s configuration is > complete:

Re: Code inspection

After several problems, example run on Aleksey’s configuration is complete: https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1164652 > On 28 Mar 2018, at 10:28, Petr Ivanov wrote: > > Started

Re: Code inspection

Started https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1164002 with Aleksey’s inspections profile. Core (long) and AOP (short) modules will be tested as example. > On 27 Mar 2018, at 19:38, Dmitry Pavlov

Re: Code inspection

Hi Petr, Could you please take inspections and run it on AI code base in https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E=buildTypeStatusDiv ? Sincerely, Dmitriy Pavlov вт, 27 мар. 2018 г. в 19:27, Dmitry Pavlov

Re: Code inspection

Alexey, thank you for bring this topic to top. What do you think about committing this inspections into Ignite code base? What can be our next steps after demonstrating CI check is possible

Re: Code inspection

Bumping up. Attached is my local inspections profile exported from Idea. Let's run the first iteration and check if it differs significantly from other community members. --AG 2018-03-19 16:39 GMT+03:00 Petr Ivanov : > Filed

Re: Code inspection

Filed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7985 [1]. > On 18 Mar 2018, at 00:56, Dmitry Pavlov wrote: > > Hello Petr, > > Many members of the community would appreciate such additional code control, > and

  1   2   >