It is always a bummer when the Java PreCommit fails due to style checking. Can we get this to run separately and quicker? I notice it depends on compileJava. I cannot remember why that is, but I recall it is a legitimate reason. Nonetheless, can we break that dependency somehow?
Kenn On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 6:42 PM Ruoyun Huang <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, everyone, > > > To make sure we move forward to a clean state where we catch violations in > any new PR, we created this change: > https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/7532 > > This PR makes checkstyle to report error on missing javadocs. For existing > violations, we explicitly added them as suppression rules, down to which > line in the code. > > The caveat is, once this PR is merged, whoever make update to any file in > the list, will very likely have to fix the existing violation for that > file. :-) Hope this sounds like a reasonable idea to move forward. > > In the meanwhile, I will try to address the items in the list (if I can). > And over time, I will get back to this and remove those suppressions no > longer needed (created JIRA-6446 for tracking purpose), until all of them > are fixed. > > On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 10:57 PM Ruoyun Huang <[email protected]> wrote: > >> created a PR: https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/7454 >> >> Note instead of having separated checkstyle specs for Main versus Test, >> this PR simply uses suppression to turn off JavaDocComment for test files. >> >> If this PR draft looks good, then next step I will commit another change >> that: >> 1) throw error on violations (now just warning to keep PR green). >> 2) List all the violations explicitly in a suppression list, and let area >> contributors/owners address and chop things off the list over time. Not >> ideal and quite some manual work, if there is a better way, please let me >> know. >> >> On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 7:29 AM Robert Bradshaw <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 11:15 PM Kenneth Knowles <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> > I think @Internal would be a reasonable annotation to exempt from >>> documentation, as that means it is explicitly *not* part of the actual >>> public API, as Ismaël alluded to. >>> >>> We'll probably want a distinct annotation from that. Forced comments, >>> especially forced-by-an-impartial-metric ones, are often lower >>> quality. This is the kind of signal that would be useful to surface to >>> a reviewer who could then (jointly) make the call rather than it being >>> a binary failure/success. >>> >>> > (I'm still on the docs-on-private-too side of things, but realize >>> that's an extreme position) >>> >>> +1 to docs on private things as well, though maybe with not as high >>> priority :). >>> >>> > It is a shame that we chose blacklist (via @Internal) instead of >>> whitelist (via e.g. @Public) for what constitutes an actual supported >>> public method. >>> >>> Probably better than having to re-train others that public doesn't >>> really mean public unless it has a @Public on it. It's harder to >>> "unknowingly" use an @Internal API. >>> >>> >>> > Kenn >>> > >>> > On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 1:46 PM Ruoyun Huang <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> To Ismael's question: When applying such a check (i.e. public method >>> with >30 Loc), our code base shows in total 115 violations. >>> >> >>> >> Thanks for the feedback everyone. As some of you mentioned already, >>> suppress warning is always available whenever contributor/reviewer feels >>> appropriate, instead of been forced to put in low quality comments. This >>> check is more about to help us avoid human errors, in those cases we do >>> want to add meaningful javadocs. >>> >> >>> >> With 5 +1s so far. I will put together a PR draft. A bit research >>> is still needed regarding the best practise to apply check to Main/Test in >>> a different way. If anyone has experience on it, please share it with me. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 8:19 AM Ismaël Mejía <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> -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 >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> ================ >>> >> Ruoyun Huang >>> >> >>> >> >> >> -- >> ================ >> Ruoyun Huang >> >> > > -- > ================ > Ruoyun Huang > >
