Hi Gil,
thanks for your thoughts. Inline...
Am 13.02.20 um 21:12 schrieb Gil Portenseigne:
Hello Michael,
Adapting checkstyle configuration is less impacting to our codebase but
make us stay different from the java standard.
That is the easier path, that will not affect code history.
But
Hello Michael,
Adapting checkstyle configuration is less impacting to our codebase but
make us stay different from the java standard.
That is the easier path, that will not affect code history.
But about getting nearer from the java standard is IMO a nice to have, to
make pure java developer
Hi *, and others (real people included),
The project's representations in SonarCloud.io (as a free service via the
ASF) gives us up-to-date information on a variety of issues related to the
various types of code (java, groovy, js, xml, etc.), like:
- bugs
- security hotspots
- code
Thanks for your feedback, Dan.
Engaging new contributors was one of the positive effects I had in mind too.
If we'd do refactorings per class/package, it should be good to handle.
We had good experience during the FindBugs initiative [1].
Thanks,
Michael Brohl
ecomify GmbH - www.ecomify.de
Inline...
Le 13/02/2020 à 17:44, Michael Brohl a écrit :
Hi *,
checkstyle currently reports a huge amount of errors. We currently have an error count setup in the configuration to prevent the build from failing
because of the present errors.
Some thoughts/questions to the community:
*
Hi Michael,
Improving the checkstyle/findbugs metrics could be a good theme for the
February Community Days as these sorts of fixes are often low risk and you
get a lot of help from your IDE.
These sorts of tasks are often a good way for new developers to get
involved as they don't require
Hi *,
checkstyle currently reports a huge amount of errors. We currently have
an error count setup in the configuration to prevent the build from
failing because of the present errors.
Some thoughts/questions to the community:
* should we take an approach to fine-tune the configuration so
Currently, notifications regarding a PullRequest are only sent to a
selected few in our community, nor do they appear to be referenced in the
appropriate ticket(s). This is not a good thing as it deprives the rest of
the community of the opportunity to collaborate.
We should work to get this
OFBIZ-11317 is NOT a new feature. It is an improvement.
If you want to discuss the implications (and impact), of 11306 I suggest to
start a new thread in this ml (or voice your concerns in comment postings
in the appropriate ticket).
As for
There's currently only few questions left for me: we
Hi Jacques,
inline...
Am 13.02.20 um 11:43 schrieb Jacques Le Roux:
Yes, I confused the date (Jan vs. Feb, time goes by too quick).
I speak of the commits towards
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-11317. The issue was
created and on the same day it was committed. It was not
Thanks Daniel,
I think the best (for now at least) is to follow the advices (WIP) of the
special page we have for that in wiki[1]
This is what I have in my local config:
[remote "origin"]
url = https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/ofbiz-framework.git
fetch =
Le 13/02/2020 à 09:35, Michael Brohl a écrit :
The paths are still hard-coded, the hard-coded part is just moved to a macro parameter. Just to be precise.
See it's simple ;)
I can't see anything complex there. Are there other things which make you worry?
Jacques
Le 13/02/2020 à 09:31, Michael Brohl a écrit :
Hi Jacques,
also inline...
Am 13.02.20 um 08:50 schrieb Jacques Le Roux:
Jacques,
as I said, this is a huge patch which spreads over many functionalies in the
codebase.
It was submitted yesterday and got committed on the same day without
Thanks Sebastian,
we've received your ICLA and I've just added you to the appropriate
roles for Jira and Confluence.
Happy contributing,
Michael Brohl
ecomify GmbH - www.ecomify.de
Am 10.02.20 um 09:45 schrieb Sebastian Berg:
Hello everyone,
I would like to ask you to add me as an
Currently, a change to the codebase and contributed through a PullRequest
(and patch files too) need to be manually reviewed (vetted) and tested by
privileged contributors. Fortunately with PullRequests, part of the vetting
is done through the integration of Sonarcloud (see the comment in the PR,
Hi Michael,
Those are the commits from my feature branch, coming in as a consequence of
merging my PR.
I imagine merging PRs from contributors will always run into this issue.
One possible solution would be for a committer to checkout the PR (branch),
generate a patch file, and then apply the
Hi Nicolas,
your are correct, I checked the history again and this seems to work
fine, using the committed date for the history. Thank you for the
explanation.
While checking I found another thing which confuses me: there are
commits in the history which seem not to be from an OFBiz
Hi,
On 13/02/2020 08:03, Michael Brohl wrote:
> There is one drawback with PR's I just noticed: the commits of the
> pull requests will be written to the commit history using the
> timestamp of the original commits.
>
> So if the commits were written a month ago and a committer merges in
> the
I agree: with current CI tooling and its setup up it can't be detected. If
the project want that changed (automatic testing of PRs before they go into
the master branche(s)) then it needs to step up and change the CI
configuration and/or tooling.
Best regards,
Pierre Smits
*Proud* *contributor*
Hi Girish,
Previously I worked to define some entries controller as Rest
(OFBIZ-11007 [1]) so I imagine a bridge between OFBiz model and Jersey.
When I told on OFBiz model is more the Java object loaded on memory
rather than read xml files.
Nicolas
[1]
Hi Pierre,
inline...
Am 13.02.20 um 09:04 schrieb Pierre Smits:
OFBIZ-11317 is NOT a huge commit. It is nothing more than a removal of a
hard-coded path in 66 files spread over 4 commits. With impact, as the
The paths are still hard-coded, the hard-coded part is just moved to a
macro
Hi Jacques,
also inline...
Am 13.02.20 um 08:50 schrieb Jacques Le Roux:
Jacques,
as I said, this is a huge patch which spreads over many functionalies
in the codebase.
It was submitted yesterday and got committed on the same day without
enough time for others to review and test.
You
OFBIZ-11317 is NOT a huge commit. It is nothing more than a removal of a
hard-coded path in 66 files spread over 4 commits. With impact, as the
stated in the ticket, classified as minor. The code changes have been
tested by the project's CI, since incorporated into the code base and have
not led
23 matches
Mail list logo
