I’m not entirely familiar with how we use Phan, but if it’s like the other tests we run with Gerrit, what we could do is have a test for deprecated APIs that passes or fails as you might expect, but have it be a non-voting test. This way a failure is a signal to check something out, but it doesn’t stop the build altogether.
> On Dec 19, 2017, at 10:01 AM, Stas Malyshev <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi! > > I've noticed a certain problem in our workflow that I'd like to discuss. > > From time to time, we deprecate certain APIs in core or extensions. The > idea of deprecation is that we have gradual transition - existing code > keeps working, and we gradually switch to the new API over time, instead > of removing old API at one sweep and breaking all the existing code. > This is the theory, and it is solid. > > Also, we have phan checks on the CI builds, which prevent us from using > deprecated APIs. Right now if phan detects deprecated API, it fails the > build. > > Now, combining this produces a problem - if somebody deprecates an API > that I use anywhere in my extension (and some extensions can be rather > big and use a lot of different APIs), all patches to that extension > immediately have their builds broken - including all those patches that > have nothing to do with the changed API. Of course, the easy way is just > to add @suppress and phan shuts up - but that means, the deprecated > function is completely off the radar, and nobody probably would remember > to look at it again ever. > > I see several issues here with this workflow: > 1. Deprecation breaks unrelated patches, so I have no choice but to shut > it up if I want to continue my work. > 2. It trains me that the reaction to phan issues should be to add > @suppress - which is the opposite of what we want to happen. > 3. The process kind of violates the spirit of what deprecation is about > - existing code doesn't keep working without change, at least as far as > the build is concerned, and constantly @suppress-ing phan diminishes the > value of having those checks in the first place. > > I am not sure what would be the best way to solve this, so I'd like to > hear some thoughts on this from people. Do you also think it is a > problem or it's just me? What would be the best way to improve it? > > Thanks, > -- > Stas Malyshev > [email protected] > > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
