-0 Same comments than Robert I am particularly worried on how this affect contributors in particular casual ones. Even if the intended idea is good I am also worried that people just write poor comments to get rid of the annoyance.
Have you already estimated how hard is the current codebase impacted? Or how many methods will be needed to document before this gets in place? I wouldn't be surprised if many runners or internal parts of the codebase lack comments on public methods considering that the 'public API' of must runners 'is not' the public methods but the specific PipelineOptions, and for some methods (even longer ones) such comments may be trivial. On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 5:16 PM Kenneth Knowles <[email protected]> wrote: > > +1 I even thought this was already on (at some point). > > On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 8:01 AM Scott Wegner <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I would even propose applying this to non-public methods, but I suspect that >> would be more controversial. > > > I also would support this. It will improve code quality as well. Often > missing doc means something is not well thought-out. It often also indicates > a misguided attempt to "share code" without sharing a clear concept. > >> I share Robert's concern for random victims hitting the policy when a method >> grows from N-1 to N lines. This can easily happen with automatic refactoring >> + spotless code formatting. For example, renaming a variable to a longer >> name can introduce new line-breaks. But, I'm think code documentation is >> valuable enough that it's still worth it. > > > Another perspective is that someone is getting away with missing > documentation at N-1. Seems OK. But maybe just allowMissingPropertyJavadoc > (from http://checkstyle.sourceforge.net/config_javadoc.html#JavadocMethod)? > We can also configure allowedAnnotations but if you are going to go through > the trouble of annotating something, a javadoc comment is just as easy. > > I want to caveat this: I am strongly opposed to any requirements on the > contents of the javadoc, which is almost all the time redundant bloat if the > description is at all adequate. > > Kenn > > >> >> On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 4:03 AM Robert Bradshaw <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> With the clarification that we're looking at the intersection of >>> public + "big", I think this is a great idea. We should make it clear >>> that this is a lower bar--many private or shorter methods merit >>> documentation as well (but that's harder to automatically detect). The >>> one difficulty with a threshold is that it's painful for the person >>> who does some refactoring or other minor work and turns the (say) >>> 29-line method into a 30-line one. This is a case where as suppression >>> annotation (appropriately used) could be useful. >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 1:49 AM Daniel Oliveira <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > +1 >>> > >>> > I like this idea, especially with the line number requirement. The exact >>> > number of lines is debatable, but you could go as low as 10 lines and >>> > that would exclude any trivial setters and getters. Even better might be >>> > if it's possible to configure checkstyle to ignore this for getters and >>> > setters (I don't know if checkstyle supports this, but I know that other >>> > tools are able to auto-detect getters and setters). >>> > >>> > I'm not dead-set against having annotation to suppress the comment, but >>> > it carries the risk that code will be left un-commented because both the >>> > dev and reviewer think it's self-explanatory, and then someone new to the >>> > codebase finds it confusing. >>> > >>> > On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 11:31 AM Ankur Goenka <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> I think it makes sense. >>> >> Having an annotation to suppress this check for a method/class instead >>> >> of adding trivial comment would be useful. >>> >> >>> >> On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 9:53 AM Ruoyun Huang <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Yeah. Agree there is no reason to enforce anything for trivial methods >>> >>> like setter/getter. >>> >>> >>> >>> What I meant is to enforce only for a method that is BOTH 1) public >>> >>> method 2) has longer than N lines. >>> >>> >>> >>> sorry for not making the proposal clear enough in the original message, >>> >>> it should've better titled "enforce ... on non-trivial public methods". >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 1:31 AM Robert Bradshaw <[email protected]> >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> IMHO, requiring comments on trivial methods like setters and getters >>> >>>> is often a net negative, but setting some standard could be useful. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 7:35 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré >>> >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > Hi, >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > for the presence of a comment on public method, it's a good idea. >>> >>>> > Now, >>> >>>> > about the number of lines, not sure it's a good idea. I'm thinking >>> >>>> > about >>> >>>> > the getter/setter which are public. Most of the time, the comment is >>> >>>> > pretty simple (and useless ;)). >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > Regards >>> >>>> > JB >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > On 07/01/2019 04:35, Ruoyun Huang wrote: >>> >>>> > > Hi, everyone, >>> >>>> > > >>> >>>> > > >>> >>>> > > We were wondering whether it is a good idea to make checkstyle >>> >>>> > > enforce public method comments. Our current behavior of JavaDoc >>> >>>> > > check is: >>> >>>> > > >>> >>>> > > 1. >>> >>>> > > >>> >>>> > > Missing Class javadoc comment is reported as error. >>> >>>> > > >>> >>>> > > 2. >>> >>>> > > >>> >>>> > > Method comment missing is explicitly allowed. see [1]. It is >>> >>>> > > not >>> >>>> > > even shown as warning. >>> >>>> > > >>> >>>> > > 3. >>> >>>> > > >>> >>>> > > The actual javadoc target gives warning when certain tags are >>> >>>> > > missing in javadoc, but not if the whole comment is missing. >>> >>>> > > >>> >>>> > > >>> >>>> > > How about we enforce method comments for **1) public method and >>> >>>> > > 2) >>> >>>> > > method that is longer than N lines**. (N=~30 seems a good number, >>> >>>> > > leading to ~50 violations in current repository). I can find out >>> >>>> > > the >>> >>>> > > corresponding contributors to fill in the missing comments, before >>> >>>> > > we >>> >>>> > > turning the check fully on. >>> >>>> > > >>> >>>> > > >>> >>>> > > One caveat though is that we might want skip this check on test >>> >>>> > > code, >>> >>>> > > but I am not sure yet if our current setup can easily handle >>> >>>> > > separated >>> >>>> > > rules for main code versus test code. >>> >>>> > > >>> >>>> > > >>> >>>> > > Is this a good idea? Thoughts and suggestions? >>> >>>> > > >>> >>>> > > >>> >>>> > > [1] >>> >>>> > > https://github.com/apache/beam/blame/5ceffb246c0c38ad68dd208e951a1f39c90ef85c/sdks/java/build-tools/src/main/resources/beam/checkstyle.xml#L111 >>> >>>> > > >>> >>>> > > >>> >>>> > > Cheers, >>> >>>> > > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > -- >>> >>>> > Jean-Baptiste Onofré >>> >>>> > [email protected] >>> >>>> > http://blog.nanthrax.net >>> >>>> > Talend - http://www.talend.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> ================ >>> >>> Ruoyun Huang >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> >> Got feedback? tinyurl.com/swegner-feedback
