Yes, I've mentioned that there is a property we can set to skip checkstyle.
Currently such a goal is "artifacts" which basically validates everything. - - -- --- ----- -------- ------------- Jacek Lewandowski pon., 26 cze 2023 o 13:09 Mike Adamson <madam...@datastax.com> napisał(a): > While I like the idea of this because of added time these checks take, I > was under the impression that checkstyle (at least) can be disabled with a > flag. > > If we did do this, would it make sense to have a "release" or "commit" > target (or some other name) that ran a full build with all checks that can > be used prior to pushing changes? > > On Mon, 26 Jun 2023 at 08:35, Berenguer Blasi <berenguerbl...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I would prefer sthg that is totally transparent to me and not add one >> more step I have to remember. Just to push/run CI to find out I missed it >> and rinse and repeat... With the recent fix to checkstyle I am happy as >> things stand atm. My 2cts >> On 26/6/23 8:43, Jacek Lewandowski wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> >> The context is that we currently have 3 checks in the build: >> >> - Checkstyle, >> >> - Eclipse-Warnings, >> >> - RAT >> >> >> CheckStyle and RAT are executed with almost every target we run: build, >> jar, test, test-some, testclasslist, etc.; on the other hand, >> Eclipse-Warnings is executed automatically only with the artifacts target. >> >> >> Checkstyle currently uses some caching, so subsequent reruns without >> cleaning the project validate only the modified files. >> >> >> Both CI - Jenkins and Circle forces running all checks. >> >> >> I want to discuss whether you are ok with extracting all checks to their >> distinct target and not running it automatically with the targets which >> devs usually run locally. In particular: >> >> >> >> - "build", "jar", and all "test" targets would not trigger >> CheckStyle, RAT or Eclipse-Warnings >> - A new target "check" would trigger all CheckStyle, RAT, and >> Eclipse-Warnings >> - The new "check" target would be run along with the "artifacts" >> target on Jenkins-CI, and it as a separate build step in CircleCI >> >> >> The rationale for that change is: >> >> - Running all the checks together would be more consistent, but >> running all of them automatically with build and test targets could waste >> time when we develop something locally, frequently rebuilding and running >> tests. >> - On the other hand, it would be more consistent if the build did >> what we want - as a dev, when prototyping, I don't want to be forced to >> run >> analysis (and potentially fix issues) whenever I want to build a project >> or >> just run a single test. >> - There are ways to avoid running checks automatically by specifying >> some build properties. Though, the discussion is about the default >> behavior >> - on the flip side, if one wants to run the checks along with the >> specified >> target, they could add the "check" target to the command line. >> >> >> The rationale for keeping the checks running automatically with every >> target is to reduce the likelihood of not running the checks locally before >> pushing the branch and being surprised by failing CI soon after starting >> the build. >> >> >> That could be fixed by running checks in a pre-push Git hook. There are >> some benefits of this compared to the current behavior: >> >> - the checks would be run automatically only once >> - they would be triggered even for those devs who do everything in >> IDE and do not even touch Ant commands directly >> >> >> Checks can take time; to optimize that, they could be enforced locally to >> verify only the modified files in the same way as we currently determine >> the tests to be repeated for CircleCI. >> >> Thanks >> - - -- --- ----- -------- ------------- >> Jacek Lewandowski >> >> > > -- > [image: DataStax Logo Square] <https://www.datastax.com/> *Mike Adamson* > Engineering > > +1 650 389 6000 <16503896000> | datastax.com <https://www.datastax.com/> > Find DataStax Online: [image: LinkedIn Logo] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.linkedin.com_company_datastax&d=DwMFaQ&c=adz96Xi0w1RHqtPMowiL2g&r=IFj3MdIKYLLXIUhYdUGB0cTzTlxyCb7_VUmICBaYilU&m=uHzE4WhPViSF0rsjSxKhfwGDU1Bo7USObSc_aIcgelo&s=akx0E6l2bnTjOvA-YxtonbW0M4b6bNg4nRwmcHNDo4Q&e=> > [image: Facebook Logo] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_datastax&d=DwMFaQ&c=adz96Xi0w1RHqtPMowiL2g&r=IFj3MdIKYLLXIUhYdUGB0cTzTlxyCb7_VUmICBaYilU&m=uHzE4WhPViSF0rsjSxKhfwGDU1Bo7USObSc_aIcgelo&s=ncMlB41-6hHuqx-EhnM83-KVtjMegQ9c2l2zDzHAxiU&e=> > [image: Twitter Logo] <https://twitter.com/DataStax> [image: RSS > Feed] <https://www.datastax.com/blog/rss.xml> [image: Github Logo] > <https://github.com/datastax> > >
