Hi Timo, Till, thanks for your input already. I'm glad to hear that the idea resonates, also thanks for the additional ideas!
I've created a JIRA issue[1] for now just to track this idea. I'm also working on a bit of a proof of concept and opened it as a draft PR[2]. I'm happy for anyone to join that PR to look and discuss. The PR doesn't necessarily intend to be merged in its current state, but is rather for evaluation. Meanwhile I'm also collecting ideas in a Google Doc, so if anyone wants to suggest more use cases to explore or implement, please let me know. [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-24138 [2] https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/17133 Best Ingo On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 12:31 PM Till Rohrmann <trohrm...@apache.org> wrote: > If it is possible to automate these kinds of checks, then I am all for it > because everything else breaks eventually. So +1 for this proposal. > > I don't have experience with what tools are available, though. > > I would like to add a rule that every test class extends directly or > indirectly TestLogger because otherwise it is super hard to make sense of > the test logs (Arvid will probably chime in stating that this will be > solved with Junit5 eventually). > > Not sure whether this is possible or not but if we can check that all > interfaces have properly defined JavaDocs on each method, then this could > also be helpful in my opinion. > > Cheers, > Till > > On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 11:16 AM Timo Walther <twal...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Hi Ingo, > > > > thanks for starting this discussion. Having more automation is > > definitely desirable. Esp. in the API / SDK areas where we frequently > > have to add similar comments to PRs. The more checks the better. We > > definitely also need more guidelines (e.g. how to develop a Flink > > connector) but automation is safer then long checklists that might be > > out of date quickly. > > > > +1 to the proposal. I don't have an opinion on the tool though. > > > > Regards, > > Timo > > > > > > On 01.09.21 11:03, Ingo Bürk wrote: > > > Hello everyone, > > > > > > I would like to start a discussion on introducing automated tests for > > more > > > architectural rather than stilistic topics. For example, here are a few > > > things that seem worth checking to me (this is Table-API-focused since > it > > > is the subsystem I'm involved in): > > > > > > (a) All classes in o.a.f.table.api should be annotated with one > > > of @Internal, @PublicEvolving, or @Public. > > > (b) Classes whose name ends in *ConnectorOptions should be located in > > > o.a.f.connector.*.table > > > (c) Classes implementing DynamicSourceFactory / DynamicSinkFactory > should > > > have no static members of type ConfigOption > > > > > > There are probably significantly more cases worth checking, and also > more > > > involved ones (these are rather simple examples), like disallowing > access > > > between certain packages etc. There are two questions I would like to > ask > > > to the community: > > > > > > (1) Do you think such tests are useful in general? > > > (2) What use cases come to mind for you? > > > > > > If the idea finds consensus, I would like to use (2) to investigate > which > > > tooling to use. An obvious candidate is Checkstyle, as this is already > > > used. It also has the advantage of being well integrated in the IDE. > > > However, it is limited to looking at single files only, and custom > checks > > > are pretty complicated and involved to implement[1]. Another possible > > tool > > > is ArchUnit[2], which would be significantly easier to maintain and is > > more > > > powerful, but in turn requires tests to be executed. If you have > further > > > suggestions (or thoughts) they would of course also be quite welcome, > > > though for now I would focus on (1) and (2) and go from there to > > evaluate. > > > > > > [1] https://checkstyle.sourceforge.io/writingchecks.html > > > [2] https://www.archunit.org/ > > > > > > > > > Best > > > Ingo > > > > > > > >
