Re: CodeNarc Gradle plugin
Hi Michael, All, If you are interested in CodeNarc integration you may help to review https://github.com/apache/ofbiz-framework/pull/517 And mark your reviews at https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Codenarc+integration+review+tracker TIA Jacques Le 12/12/2021 à 17:55, Jacques Le Roux a écrit : Hi Michael, I tried again this afternoon. The Codenarc last version needs Gradle > 6.5. I tried with 7.3 and 7.3.1 to no avail. I guess you saw my comments in OFBIZ-12400 and https://github.com/apache/ofbiz-framework/pull/354 Jacques Le 12/10/2017 à 12:44, Michael Brohl a écrit : Hi Jacques, just stumbled over this while searching for a way to analyze Groovy code in OFBiz. Can you tell us what the problem was? Thanks, Michael Am 18.09.17 um 13:12 schrieb Jacques Le Roux: Hi, I wanted to test the CodeNarc Gradle plugin https://docs.gradle.org/current/userguide/codenarc_plugin.html to see how it would complete the work done with FindBugs But, despite some efforts, I was unable to make it work with OFBiz Has someone an experience with it? Should we care? Jacques
Re: Welcome to Daniel Watford as new PMC member
Happy to have you with us Daniel! Jacques Le 28/01/2023 à 12:08, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit : Congratulations! On Saturday, January 28, 2023 13:57 +03, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: The OFBiz PMC has invited Daniel Watford as a new PMC member and we are glad to announce that Daniel has accepted the nomination. On behalf of the OFBiz PMC, welcome on board!
Re: Welcome to Daniel Watford as new PMC member
Congratulations! On Saturday, January 28, 2023 13:57 +03, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: The OFBiz PMC has invited Daniel Watford as a new PMC member and we are glad to announce that Daniel has accepted the nomination. On behalf of the OFBiz PMC, welcome on board!
Welcome to Daniel Watford as new PMC member
The OFBiz PMC has invited Daniel Watford as a new PMC member and we are glad to announce that Daniel has accepted the nomination. On behalf of the OFBiz PMC, welcome on board!
Re: Codenarc integration process
Oh sorry indeed i overview the review approach section. The table is nice, thanks Dan ! 28 janv. 2023 09:37:50 Daniel Watford : > Hi Gil, > > I don't think a checklist is quite enough, assuming we want to track the > status of each file reviewed. > > From the review approach section: > > > - If in the reviewers opinion a file change will not change OFBiz > behaviour in any way they should mark the corresponding entry in the table > below as PASSED. > - If the reviewer identifies an issue with a changed file, then they > should add a comment in the PR on GitHub AND mark the corresponding entry > in the table below as WORK NEEDED. > - If the reviewer is unsure how to classify a changed file they should > mark the corresponding entry in the table below as UNSURE. > - In each of the above cases, the reviewer should add their name against > the entry in the table below. > > The checklist doesn't give us the opportunity to see what files need some > additional help. > > I'm sure there must be some way of getting Confluence to produce a table > from a list - I just don't seem to have found it yet! I'll play around with > Confluence a bit more. > > But as mentioned before, perhaps I am making too much out of tracking this > review. > > Thanks, > > Dan. > > > On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 at 17:05, gil.portenseigne > wrote: > >> I got to leave, but i generated in confluence a list of check, is that >> good enough ? >> >> Gil >> On 27/01/23 05:41, gil.portenseigne wrote: >>> Hello, indeed, that will generate much spam, i did some before reading >>> your answer. >>> >>> I'll have a look for conluence. >>> >>> Gil >>> >>> >>> On 27/01/23 04:14, Daniel Watford wrote: Hi Gill and Jacques, I don't think we should add comments to the PR to track the files that >> we have reviewed as I think each comment will appear separately in the >> PR's conversation view. However, with such a large PR where we hope to get several reviewers involved I think we do need a mechanism to track reviewed files. I created a page here - Codenarc integration review tracker - OFBiz >> Project Open Wiki - Apache Software Foundation < >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Codenarc+integration+review+tracker >>> - suggesting an approach. If the approach is acceptable then all reviewers should be able to >> update the page as we go. I'm stuck with finding a nice way to generate a table listing all the changed files and the review status of each file. I have included the commands to produce the list of files and shown some examples of how >> to add a header, but my attempts to turn that into something useful on a confluence page have not been fruitful. So two questions. - Is it worth coming up with a page/table to track this PR or am I just creating unnecessary admin work when we could use comments in the PR? - Can anyone create a table in Confluence that we could use to track >> the review effort? Thanks, Dan. On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 at 15:27, gil.portenseigne < >> gil.portensei...@nereide.fr> wrote: > Oops, i did a fixup commit with push force that remove all comments >> in > the pull request... Will not do that again. > > I fixed the detected typo. > > gil > On 27/01/23 02:56, Jacques Le Roux wrote: >> … >> the pull >> … >> checkbox if a >> … >> request, >> … >> to the > same conclusion. >> … >> Could > be easy if it's the same unique words in every file. >> … >> concern > one >> … >> but it >> … >> file, to > let >> … >> "Review > changes" button allows you to comment, approve or request changes on >> this > file. >> … >> can > mark an >> … >> reviewers > can skip >> … > -- Daniel Watford >> >> >> > > -- > Daniel Watford
Re: Codenarc integration process
Thanks Daniel, Looks great, but indeed a bit more work, notably because you need to C/P, modify and save. Also looks like we are still only 3 to review, so about 150 files each. Some help would be appreciated :) Jacques Le 28/01/2023 à 09:46, Daniel Watford a écrit : Turns out I was able to import the list of files into Excel and copy and paste the table from Excel to Confluence. On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 at 08:37, Daniel Watford wrote: Hi Gil, I don't think a checklist is quite enough, assuming we want to track the status of each file reviewed. >From the review approach section: - If in the reviewers opinion a file change will not change OFBiz behaviour in any way they should mark the corresponding entry in the table below as PASSED. - If the reviewer identifies an issue with a changed file, then they should add a comment in the PR on GitHub AND mark the corresponding entry in the table below as WORK NEEDED. - If the reviewer is unsure how to classify a changed file they should mark the corresponding entry in the table below as UNSURE. - In each of the above cases, the reviewer should add their name against the entry in the table below. The checklist doesn't give us the opportunity to see what files need some additional help. I'm sure there must be some way of getting Confluence to produce a table from a list - I just don't seem to have found it yet! I'll play around with Confluence a bit more. But as mentioned before, perhaps I am making too much out of tracking this review. Thanks, Dan. On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 at 17:05, gil.portenseigne < gil.portensei...@nereide.fr> wrote: I got to leave, but i generated in confluence a list of check, is that good enough ? Gil On 27/01/23 05:41, gil.portenseigne wrote: Hello, indeed, that will generate much spam, i did some before reading your answer. I'll have a look for conluence. Gil On 27/01/23 04:14, Daniel Watford wrote: Hi Gill and Jacques, I don't think we should add comments to the PR to track the files that we have reviewed as I think each comment will appear separately in the PR's conversation view. However, with such a large PR where we hope to get several reviewers involved I think we do need a mechanism to track reviewed files. I created a page here - Codenarc integration review tracker - OFBiz Project Open Wiki - Apache Software Foundation < https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Codenarc+integration+review+tracker - suggesting an approach. If the approach is acceptable then all reviewers should be able to update the page as we go. I'm stuck with finding a nice way to generate a table listing all the changed files and the review status of each file. I have included the commands to produce the list of files and shown some examples of how to add a header, but my attempts to turn that into something useful on a confluence page have not been fruitful. So two questions. - Is it worth coming up with a page/table to track this PR or am I just creating unnecessary admin work when we could use comments in the PR? - Can anyone create a table in Confluence that we could use to track the review effort? Thanks, Dan. On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 at 15:27, gil.portenseigne < gil.portensei...@nereide.fr> wrote: Oops, i did a fixup commit with push force that remove all comments in the pull request... Will not do that again. I fixed the detected typo. gil On 27/01/23 02:56, Jacques Le Roux wrote: Ah OK, sounds better indeed Le 27/01/2023 à 14:06, gil.portenseigne a écrit : The idea is not to modify the files, but to add a comment into the pull request. Those allowing each reviewer to check the viewed checkbox if a comment is present, to collapse already reviewed files. So no need further action, apart the real code modification request, when commiting the code. On 27/01/23 12:00, Jacques Le Roux wrote: Hi Gil, Daniel, I agree Gil, I just tried before seeing your message and came to the same conclusion. With a comment at top we would need to remove it later, right? Could be easy if it's the same unique words in every file. Jacques Le 27/01/2023 à 10:41, gil.portenseigne a écrit : Hi Daniel, Jacques, I wonders the same, the "Review changes" do not seems to concern one file but the whole pull request, there is a review checkbox, but it seems to be personal, i checked the first one (AcctgAdminServices.groovy) for testing purpose. What we could do is to add a comment at the start of each file, to let others know that review job has been done. WDYT ? Gil On 26/01/23 07:48, Jacques Le Roux wrote: Hi Daniel, In "Files changed" tab*, when you select a file, the "Review changes" button allows you to comment, approve or request changes on this file. I guess "approve" is what you are looking for? * https://github.com/apache/ofbiz-framework/pull/517/files Le 26/01/2023 à 17:26, Daniel Watford a écrit : Does anyone know of a way in a GitHub
Re: Codenarc integration process
Turns out I was able to import the list of files into Excel and copy and paste the table from Excel to Confluence. On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 at 08:37, Daniel Watford wrote: > Hi Gil, > > I don't think a checklist is quite enough, assuming we want to track the > status of each file reviewed. > > From the review approach section: > > >- If in the reviewers opinion a file change will not change OFBiz >behaviour in any way they should mark the corresponding entry in the table >below as PASSED. >- If the reviewer identifies an issue with a changed file, then they >should add a comment in the PR on GitHub AND mark the corresponding entry >in the table below as WORK NEEDED. >- If the reviewer is unsure how to classify a changed file they should >mark the corresponding entry in the table below as UNSURE. >- In each of the above cases, the reviewer should add their name >against the entry in the table below. > > The checklist doesn't give us the opportunity to see what files need some > additional help. > > I'm sure there must be some way of getting Confluence to produce a table > from a list - I just don't seem to have found it yet! I'll play around with > Confluence a bit more. > > But as mentioned before, perhaps I am making too much out of tracking this > review. > > Thanks, > > Dan. > > > On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 at 17:05, gil.portenseigne < > gil.portensei...@nereide.fr> wrote: > >> I got to leave, but i generated in confluence a list of check, is that >> good enough ? >> >> Gil >> On 27/01/23 05:41, gil.portenseigne wrote: >> > Hello, indeed, that will generate much spam, i did some before reading >> > your answer. >> > >> > I'll have a look for conluence. >> > >> > Gil >> > >> > >> > On 27/01/23 04:14, Daniel Watford wrote: >> > > Hi Gill and Jacques, >> > > >> > > I don't think we should add comments to the PR to track the files >> that we >> > > have reviewed as I think each comment will appear separately in the >> PR's >> > > conversation view. >> > > >> > > However, with such a large PR where we hope to get several reviewers >> > > involved I think we do need a mechanism to track reviewed files. >> > > >> > > I created a page here - Codenarc integration review tracker - OFBiz >> Project >> > > Open Wiki - Apache Software Foundation >> > > < >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Codenarc+integration+review+tracker >> > >> > > - >> > > suggesting an approach. >> > > >> > > If the approach is acceptable then all reviewers should be able to >> update >> > > the page as we go. >> > > >> > > I'm stuck with finding a nice way to generate a table listing all the >> > > changed files and the review status of each file. I have included the >> > > commands to produce the list of files and shown some examples of how >> to add >> > > a header, but my attempts to turn that into something useful on a >> > > confluence page have not been fruitful. >> > > >> > > So two questions. >> > > - Is it worth coming up with a page/table to track this PR or am I >> just >> > > creating unnecessary admin work when we could use comments in the PR? >> > > - Can anyone create a table in Confluence that we could use to track >> the >> > > review effort? >> > > >> > > Thanks, >> > > >> > > Dan. >> > > >> > > >> > > On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 at 15:27, gil.portenseigne < >> gil.portensei...@nereide.fr> >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > > > Oops, i did a fixup commit with push force that remove all comments >> in >> > > > the pull request... Will not do that again. >> > > > >> > > > I fixed the detected typo. >> > > > >> > > > gil >> > > > On 27/01/23 02:56, Jacques Le Roux wrote: >> > > > > Ah OK, sounds better indeed >> > > > > >> > > > > Le 27/01/2023 à 14:06, gil.portenseigne a écrit : >> > > > > > The idea is not to modify the files, but to add a comment into >> the pull >> > > > > > request. Those allowing each reviewer to check the viewed >> checkbox if a >> > > > > > comment is present, to collapse already reviewed files. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > So no need further action, apart the real code modification >> request, >> > > > > > when commiting the code. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On 27/01/23 12:00, Jacques Le Roux wrote: >> > > > > > > Hi Gil, Daniel, >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I agree Gil, I just tried before seeing your message and came >> to the >> > > > same conclusion. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > With a comment at top we would need to remove it later, >> right? Could >> > > > be easy if it's the same unique words in every file. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Jacques >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Le 27/01/2023 à 10:41, gil.portenseigne a écrit : >> > > > > > > > Hi Daniel, Jacques, >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I wonders the same, the "Review changes" do not seems to >> concern >> > > > one >> > > > > > > > file but the whole pull request, there is a review >> checkbox, but it >> > > > > > > > seems to be personal, i checked the first one >> > > > > > > > (AcctgAdminServices.groovy)
Re: Codenarc integration process
Hi Gil, I don't think a checklist is quite enough, assuming we want to track the status of each file reviewed. >From the review approach section: - If in the reviewers opinion a file change will not change OFBiz behaviour in any way they should mark the corresponding entry in the table below as PASSED. - If the reviewer identifies an issue with a changed file, then they should add a comment in the PR on GitHub AND mark the corresponding entry in the table below as WORK NEEDED. - If the reviewer is unsure how to classify a changed file they should mark the corresponding entry in the table below as UNSURE. - In each of the above cases, the reviewer should add their name against the entry in the table below. The checklist doesn't give us the opportunity to see what files need some additional help. I'm sure there must be some way of getting Confluence to produce a table from a list - I just don't seem to have found it yet! I'll play around with Confluence a bit more. But as mentioned before, perhaps I am making too much out of tracking this review. Thanks, Dan. On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 at 17:05, gil.portenseigne wrote: > I got to leave, but i generated in confluence a list of check, is that > good enough ? > > Gil > On 27/01/23 05:41, gil.portenseigne wrote: > > Hello, indeed, that will generate much spam, i did some before reading > > your answer. > > > > I'll have a look for conluence. > > > > Gil > > > > > > On 27/01/23 04:14, Daniel Watford wrote: > > > Hi Gill and Jacques, > > > > > > I don't think we should add comments to the PR to track the files that > we > > > have reviewed as I think each comment will appear separately in the > PR's > > > conversation view. > > > > > > However, with such a large PR where we hope to get several reviewers > > > involved I think we do need a mechanism to track reviewed files. > > > > > > I created a page here - Codenarc integration review tracker - OFBiz > Project > > > Open Wiki - Apache Software Foundation > > > < > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Codenarc+integration+review+tracker > > > > > - > > > suggesting an approach. > > > > > > If the approach is acceptable then all reviewers should be able to > update > > > the page as we go. > > > > > > I'm stuck with finding a nice way to generate a table listing all the > > > changed files and the review status of each file. I have included the > > > commands to produce the list of files and shown some examples of how > to add > > > a header, but my attempts to turn that into something useful on a > > > confluence page have not been fruitful. > > > > > > So two questions. > > > - Is it worth coming up with a page/table to track this PR or am I just > > > creating unnecessary admin work when we could use comments in the PR? > > > - Can anyone create a table in Confluence that we could use to track > the > > > review effort? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Dan. > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 at 15:27, gil.portenseigne < > gil.portensei...@nereide.fr> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Oops, i did a fixup commit with push force that remove all comments > in > > > > the pull request... Will not do that again. > > > > > > > > I fixed the detected typo. > > > > > > > > gil > > > > On 27/01/23 02:56, Jacques Le Roux wrote: > > > > > Ah OK, sounds better indeed > > > > > > > > > > Le 27/01/2023 à 14:06, gil.portenseigne a écrit : > > > > > > The idea is not to modify the files, but to add a comment into > the pull > > > > > > request. Those allowing each reviewer to check the viewed > checkbox if a > > > > > > comment is present, to collapse already reviewed files. > > > > > > > > > > > > So no need further action, apart the real code modification > request, > > > > > > when commiting the code. > > > > > > > > > > > > On 27/01/23 12:00, Jacques Le Roux wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Gil, Daniel, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree Gil, I just tried before seeing your message and came > to the > > > > same conclusion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With a comment at top we would need to remove it later, right? > Could > > > > be easy if it's the same unique words in every file. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jacques > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Le 27/01/2023 à 10:41, gil.portenseigne a écrit : > > > > > > > > Hi Daniel, Jacques, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I wonders the same, the "Review changes" do not seems to > concern > > > > one > > > > > > > > file but the whole pull request, there is a review checkbox, > but it > > > > > > > > seems to be personal, i checked the first one > > > > > > > > (AcctgAdminServices.groovy) for testing purpose. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What we could do is to add a comment at the start of each > file, to > > > > let > > > > > > > > others know that review job has been done. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Gil > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 26/01/23 07:48, Jacques Le Roux wrote: > > > > > >
