Dmitry, My question was how to proceed with your rules. Could you please clarify?
On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 2:52 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov....@gmail.com> wrote: > Vladimir, I mean strict definition, how much previous runs should > contributor consider? What if test was failed by infrastructure reason in > master previously, how can contributor be sure test failure != broken code > in PR? In this case it should be double checked by contributor/reviewer. > I'm sure nobody can give strict definition of 'new' failure. > > Flaky tests detected by TC may be taken into account in check-list, because > contributor can check if failure is flaky. But again, not all tests with > floating failure is detected by TC as flaky. > > I don't understand what problem will be solved if we soften current > requirement with 'new' test? Everybody will continue to complain they PR's > test failures is not `new`. So let's keep it as is. > > пн, 4 июн. 2018 г. в 14:46, Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com>: > > > Dmitry, > > > > New failure is a failure hasn't happened on previous runs. If it do > > happened, then contributor should see if it is a flaky or not through > local > > and TC runs. The same works for timeout suites. > > Current statement in "Review Checklist" that there are should be no > failed > > tests is not applicable to real word. Almost every patch is pushed to > > repository with test failures. > > > > On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 2:22 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov....@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Vladimir, could you provide definition what is new failure? how do > you > > > know it is new or not? > > > > > > And please forget for a moment you're Ignite expert & veteran, imagine > > you > > > are newcomer. > > > > > > I can't find any criteria that can be used by newbie to come to the > > > conclusion that test is new. Patch is accepted by reviewer, so it > should > > be > > > up to him to correctly register failures in tickets with > > > MakeTeamCityGreenAgain label and mute unimportant tests. > > > > > > пн, 4 июн. 2018 г. в 11:32, Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com>: > > > > > > > Dmitry, > > > > > > > > I still do not see how new patches could be accepted with this > > > requirement > > > > in place. Consider the following case: I created a patch and run it > on > > > TC, > > > > observed N failures, verified through TC history that none if them > are > > > new. > > > > Am I eligible to push the commit? > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 3:11 PM, Dmitry Pavlov < > dpavlov....@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Petr, good point. It is more intuitive, we should mark test we can > > > ignore > > > > > by mute. > > > > > > > > > > So Vladimir, you or other Ignite veteran can mute test, if can say > it > > > is > > > > > not important. > > > > > > > > > > чт, 24 мая 2018 г. в 15:07, Petr Ivanov <mr.wei...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > > > > > Why cannot we mute (and file corresponding tickets) all test > > failures > > > > > > (including flaky) to some date and start initiative Green TC? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 24 May 2018, at 15:04, Vladimir Ozerov < > voze...@gridgain.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitry, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We cannot add this requirements, because we do have failures on > > TC. > > > > > This > > > > > > > requirement implies that all development would stop until TC is > > > > green. > > > > > > > We never had old requirement work, neither we need to enforce > it > > > now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 2:59 PM, Dmitry Pavlov < > > > > dpavlov....@gmail.com> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> 3.c > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> 1. All test suites *MUST* be run on TeamCity [3] before > merge > > to > > > > > > master, > > > > > > >> there *MUST NOT* be any test failures > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> 'New' word should be removed because we cant separate `new` > and > > > `non > > > > > > new` > > > > > > >> failures. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Let's imagine example, we have 50 green runs in master. And PR > > > > Run-All > > > > > > >> contains this test failed. Is it new or not new? Actually we > > don't > > > > > know. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Existing requirement is about all TC must be green, so let's > > keep > > > it > > > > > as > > > > > > is. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> ср, 23 мая 2018 г. в 17:02, Vladimir Ozerov < > > voze...@gridgain.com > > > >: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>> Igniters, > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> I created review checklist on WIKI [1] and also fixed related > > > pages > > > > > > (e.g. > > > > > > >>> "How To Contribute"). Please let me know if you have any > > comments > > > > > > before > > > > > > >> I > > > > > > >>> go with public announce. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> Vladimir. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> [1] > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Review+Checklist > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:10 PM, Vladimir Ozerov < > > > > > voze...@gridgain.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> wrote: > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> Ilya, > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> We define that exception messages *SHOULD* have clear > > > explanation > > > > on > > > > > > >> what > > > > > > >>>> is wrong. *SHOULD* mean that the rule should be followed > > unless > > > > > there > > > > > > >> is > > > > > > >>> a > > > > > > >>>> reason not to follow. In your case you refer to some > > unexpected > > > > > > >> behavior. > > > > > > >>>> I.e. an exceptional situation developer is not aware of. In > > this > > > > > case > > > > > > >> for > > > > > > >>>> sure we cannot force contributor to explain what is wrong, > > > > because, > > > > > > >> well, > > > > > > >>>> we don't know. This is why we relaxed the rule from *MUST* > to > > > > > > *SHOULD*. > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Ilya Kasnacheev < > > > > > > >>>> ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> I don't think I quite understand how exception explanations > > > > should > > > > > > >> work. > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> Imagine we have the following exception: > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> // At least RuntimeException can be thrown by the code > above > > > when > > > > > > >>>>> GridCacheContext is cleaned and there is > > > > > > >>>>> // an attempt to use cleaned resources. > > > > > > >>>>> U.error(log, "Unexpected exception during cache update", > e); > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> I mean, we genuinely don't know what happened here. > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> Under new rules, what kind of "workaround" would that > > exception > > > > > > >> suggest? > > > > > > >>>>> "Try turning it off and then back on"? > > > > > > >>>>> What explanation how to resolve this exception can we > offer? > > > > > "Please > > > > > > >>> write > > > > > > >>>>> to d...@apache.ignite.org or to Apache JIRA, and then wait > > for > > > a > > > > > > >> release > > > > > > >>>>> with fix?" > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> I'm really confused how we can implement 1.6 and 1.7 when > > > dealing > > > > > > with > > > > > > >>>>> messy real-world code. > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> Regards, > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> -- > > > > > > >>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> 2018-05-10 11:39 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov < > > > voze...@gridgain.com > > > > >: > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> Andrey, Anton, Alex > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> Agree, *SHOULD* is more appropriate here. > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> Please see latest version below. Does anyone want to add > or > > > > change > > > > > > >>>>>> something? Let's wait for several days for more feedback > and > > > > then > > > > > > >>>>> publish > > > > > > >>>>>> and announce this list. Note that it would not be carved > in > > > > stone > > > > > > >> and > > > > > > >>> we > > > > > > >>>>>> will be able to change it at any time if needed. > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> 1) API > > > > > > >>>>>> 1.1) API compatibility *MUST* be maintained between minor > > > > > releases. > > > > > > >> Do > > > > > > >>>>> not > > > > > > >>>>>> remove existing methods or change their signatures, > > deprecate > > > > them > > > > > > >>>>> instead > > > > > > >>>>>> 1.2) Default behaviour "SHOULD NOT* be changed between > minor > > > > > > >> releases, > > > > > > >>>>>> unless absolutely needed. If change is made, it *MUST* be > > > > > described > > > > > > >> in > > > > > > >>>>>> "Migration Guide" > > > > > > >>>>>> 1.3) New operation *MUST* be well-documented in code > > (javadoc, > > > > > > >>>>> dotnetdoc): > > > > > > >>>>>> documentation must contain method's purpose, description > of > > > > > > >> parameters > > > > > > >>>>> and > > > > > > >>>>>> how their values affect the outcome, description of return > > > value > > > > > and > > > > > > >>>>> it's > > > > > > >>>>>> default, behavior in negative cases, interaction with > other > > > > > > >> operations > > > > > > >>>>> and > > > > > > >>>>>> components > > > > > > >>>>>> 1.4) API parity between Java and .NET platforms *SHOULD* > be > > > > > > >> maintained > > > > > > >>>>> when > > > > > > >>>>>> operation makes sense on both platforms. If method cannot > be > > > > > > >>>>> implemented in > > > > > > >>>>>> a platform immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be created > > and > > > > > linked > > > > > > >>> to > > > > > > >>>>>> current ticket > > > > > > >>>>>> 1.5) API parity between thin clients (Java, .NET) *SHOULD* > > be > > > > > > >>> maintained > > > > > > >>>>>> when operation makes sense on several clients. If method > > > cannot > > > > be > > > > > > >>>>>> implemented in a client immediately, new JIRA ticket > *MUST* > > be > > > > > > >> created > > > > > > >>>>> and > > > > > > >>>>>> linked to current ticket > > > > > > >>>>>> 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user **SHOULD** have > > > explanation > > > > > how > > > > > > >>> to > > > > > > >>>>>> resolve, workaround or debug an error > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> 2) Compatibility > > > > > > >>>>>> 2.1) Persistence backward compatibility *MUST* be > maintained > > > > > between > > > > > > >>>>> minor > > > > > > >>>>>> releases. It should be possible to start newer version on > > data > > > > > files > > > > > > >>>>>> created by the previous version > > > > > > >>>>>> 2.2) Thin client forward and backward compatibility > *SHOULD* > > > be > > > > > > >>>>> maintained > > > > > > >>>>>> between two consecutive minor releases. If compatibility > > > cannot > > > > be > > > > > > >>>>>> maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide" > > > > > > >>>>>> 2.3) JDBC and ODBC forward and backward compatibility > > *SHOULD* > > > > be > > > > > > >>>>>> maintained between two consecutive minor releases. If > > > > > compatibility > > > > > > >>>>> cannot > > > > > > >>>>>> be maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide" > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> 3) Tests > > > > > > >>>>>> 3.1) New functionality *MUST* be covered with unit tests > for > > > > both > > > > > > >>>>> positive > > > > > > >>>>>> and negative use cases > > > > > > >>>>>> 3.2) All test suites *MUST* be run before merge to > > > master..There > > > > > > >>> *MUST* > > > > > > >>>>> be > > > > > > >>>>>> no new test failures > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> 4) Code style *MUST* be followed as per Ignite's Coding > > > > Guidelines > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> Vladimir. > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 1:05 PM, Andrey Kuznetsov < > > > > > stku...@gmail.com > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>>>> wrote: > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> Anton, > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> I agree, *MUST* for exception reasons and *SHOULD* for > ways > > > of > > > > > > >>>>> resolution > > > > > > >>>>>>> sound clearer. > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> 2018-05-08 12:56 GMT+03:00 Anton Vinogradov < > a...@apache.org > > >: > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Andrey, > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> How about > > > > > > >>>>>>>> 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user *MUST* have > > explanation > > > > of > > > > > > >>>>>>> workaround > > > > > > >>>>>>>> and contain original error. > > > > > > >>>>>>>> All exceptions thrown to a user *SHOULD* have > explanation > > > how > > > > to > > > > > > >>>>>> resolve > > > > > > >>>>>>> if > > > > > > >>>>>>>> possible. > > > > > > >>>>>>>> ? > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> вт, 8 мая 2018 г. в 12:26, Andrey Kuznetsov < > > > > stku...@gmail.com > > > > > > >>> : > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Vladimir, checklist looks pleasant enough for me. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> I'd like to suggest one minor change. In 1.6 *MUST* > seems > > > to > > > > > > >> be > > > > > > >>>>> too > > > > > > >>>>>>>> strict, > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> *SHOULD* would be enough. It can be frustrating for API > > > user > > > > > > >> if > > > > > > >>> I > > > > > > >>>>>>> explain > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> how to fix NPEs in a trivial way, for example. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 2018-05-08 11:34 GMT+03:00 Anton Vinogradov < > > a...@apache.org > > > >: > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Alex, > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> It is not sounds like that, obviously. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Tests should cover all negative and positive cases. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> You should add enough tests to cover all cases. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Sometimes one test can cover more than one case, so > two > > > > > > >> tests > > > > > > >>>>> *CAN* > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> partially check same things. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> In case some cases already covered you should not > create > > > > > > >>>>>> duplicates. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> вт, 8 мая 2018 г. в 10:19, Александр Меньшиков < > > > > > > >>>>>> sharple...@gmail.com > > > > > > >>>>>>>> : > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Vladimir, the 3.1 is a bit unclear for me. Which code > > > > > > >>>>> coverage is > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> acceptable? Now it sounds like two tests are enough > > (one > > > > > > >> for > > > > > > >>>>>>> positive > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> and > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> one for negative cases). > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> 2018-05-07 23:09 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan < > > > > > > >>>>>>> dsetrak...@apache.org > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> : > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Is this list on the Wiki? > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 7:26 AM, Vladimir Ozerov < > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> voze...@gridgain.com> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters, > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the checklist I have at the moment. Please > > let > > > > > > >>> me > > > > > > >>>>>> know > > > > > > >>>>>>> if > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> you > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> have > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> any comments on existing items, or want to add or > > > > > > >> remove > > > > > > >>>>>>>> anything. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> It > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> looks > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> like we may have not only strict rules, but *nice > to > > > > > > >>> have* > > > > > > >>>>>>> points > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> here > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> as > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> well with help of *MUST*, *SHOULD* and *MAY* words > as > > > > > > >>> per > > > > > > >>>>>>> RFC2119 > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [1]. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> So > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> please feel free to suggest optional items as well. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) API > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.1) API compatibility *MUST* be maintained between > > > > > > >>> minor > > > > > > >>>>>>>> releases. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Do > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> not > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> remove existing methods or change their signatures, > > > > > > >>>>> deprecate > > > > > > >>>>>>>> them > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> instead > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.2) Default behaviour "SHOULD NOT* be changed > > between > > > > > > >>>>> minor > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> releases, > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> unless absolutely needed. If change is made, it > > *MUST* > > > > > > >>> be > > > > > > >>>>>>>> described > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> in > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Migration Guide" > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.3) New operation *MUST* be well-documented in > code > > > > > > >>>>>> (javadoc, > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> dotnetdoc): > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> documentation must contain method's purpose, > > > > > > >> description > > > > > > >>>>> of > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> parameters > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> how their values affect the outcome, description of > > > > > > >>> return > > > > > > >>>>>>> value > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> and > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> it's > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> default, behavior in negative cases, interaction > with > > > > > > >>>>> other > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> operations > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> components > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.4) API parity between Java and .NET platforms > > > > > > >> *SHOULD* > > > > > > >>>>> be > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> maintained > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> when > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> operation makes sense on both platforms. If method > > > > > > >>> cannot > > > > > > >>>>> be > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> implemented > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> in > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a platform immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be > > > > > > >>> created > > > > > > >>>>> and > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> linked > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> to > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> current ticket > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.5) API parity between thin clients (Java, .NET) > > > > > > >>>>> *SHOULD* be > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> maintained > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> when operation makes sense on several clients. If > > > > > > >> method > > > > > > >>>>>> cannot > > > > > > >>>>>>>> be > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> implemented in a client immediately, new JIRA > ticket > > > > > > >>>>> *MUST* > > > > > > >>>>>> be > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> created > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> linked to current ticket > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user *MUST* have > > > > > > >>>>> explanation > > > > > > >>>>>>> how > > > > > > >>>>>>>> to > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> resolve, workaround or debug an error > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Compatibility > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.1) Persistence backward compatibility *MUST* be > > > > > > >>>>> maintained > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> between > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> minor > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> releases. It should be possible to start newer > > version > > > > > > >>> on > > > > > > >>>>>> data > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> files > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> created by the previous version > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.2) Thin client forward and backward compatibility > > > > > > >>>>> *SHOULD* > > > > > > >>>>>> be > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> maintained > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> between two consecutive minor releases. If > > > > > > >> compatibility > > > > > > >>>>>> cannot > > > > > > >>>>>>>> be > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration > > Guide" > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.3) JDBC and ODBC forward and backward > compatibility > > > > > > >>>>>> *SHOULD* > > > > > > >>>>>>> be > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> maintained between two consecutive minor releases. > If > > > > > > >>>>>>>> compatibility > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> cannot > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> be maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration > > > > > > >>> Guide" > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) Tests > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.1) New functionality *MUST* be covered with unit > > > > > > >> tests > > > > > > >>>>> for > > > > > > >>>>>>> both > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> positive > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and negative use cases > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.2) All test suites *MUST* be run before merge to > > > > > > >>>>>>> master..There > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> *MUST* > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> be > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> no new test failures > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 4) Code style *MUST* be followed as per Ignite's > > > > > > >> Coding > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Guidelines > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Vladimir. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Vladimir Ozerov < > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> voze...@gridgain.com> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Dmitry, > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I'll do that in the nearest days. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Dmitry Pavlov < > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> dpavlov....@gmail.com> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters, the idea was related to small > > > > > > >> refactorings > > > > > > >>>>>>>> co-located > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> with > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> main > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Main change itself indicates that existing code > did > > > > > > >>> not > > > > > > >>>>>> meet > > > > > > >>>>>>>> the > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> criteria > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of practice. Approving of standalone refactorings > > > > > > >>>>> instead > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> contradicts > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> with > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> principle don't touch if it works. So I still > like > > > > > > >>>>> idea of > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> co-located > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes improving code, javadocs, style, etc. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But let's not argue about this point now, let's > > > > > > >>>>> summarize > > > > > > >>>>>>> the > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> undisputed > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> points and add it to the wiki. Vladimir, would > you > > > > > > >>>>> please > > > > > > >>>>>> do > > > > > > >>>>>>>> it? > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 25 апр. 2018 г. в 16:42, Nikolay Izhikov < > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> nizhi...@apache.org > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> : > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters, > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with Vova. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't fix if it works! > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you 100% sure then it a useful addition to > the > > > > > > >>>>>> product > > > > > > >>>>>>> - > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> just > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> make > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate ticket. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> В Ср, 25/04/2018 в 11:44 +0300, Vladimir Ozerov > > > > > > >>>>> пишет: > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guys, > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem with in-place refactorings is that > > > > > > >>> you > > > > > > >>>>>>>> increase > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> affected > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scope. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not uncommon to break compatibility or > > > > > > >>> public > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> contracts > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> with > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> minor things. E.g. recently we decided drop > > > > > > >>>>> org.jsr166 > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> package > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> in > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> favor > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Java 8 classes. Innocent change. Result - > > > > > > >> broken > > > > > > >>>>>>> storage. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Another > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is conflicts. It is not uncommon to have > > > > > > >>> long-lived > > > > > > >>>>>>>> branches > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> which > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> we > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to merge with master over and over again. And a > > > > > > >>>>> lot of > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> refactorings > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conflicts. It is much easier to resolve them if > > > > > > >>> you > > > > > > >>>>>> know > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> that > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> logic > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affected as opposed to cases when you need to > > > > > > >>>>> resolve > > > > > > >>>>>>> both > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> renames > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> method extractions along with business-logic > > > > > > >>>>> changes. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to repeat - if you have a time for > > > > > > >>>>>> refactoring > > > > > > >>>>>>>> then > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> you > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitely > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a time to extract these changes to > > > > > > >> separate > > > > > > >>> PR > > > > > > >>>>>> and > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> submit a > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ticket. I am quite understand what "low > > > > > > >> priority" > > > > > > >>>>> do > > > > > > >>>>>> you > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> mean > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> if > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> you > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> refactorings on your own. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 10:52 PM, Andrey > > > > > > >>> Kuznetsov > > > > > > >>>>> < > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> stku...@gmail.com > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once again, I beg for "small refactoring > > > > > > >>>>> permission" > > > > > > >>>>>>> in > > > > > > >>>>>>>> a > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> checklist. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As of > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> today, separate tickets for small > > > > > > >> refactorings > > > > > > >>>>> has > > > > > > >>>>>>>> lowest > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> priority, > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they neither fix any flaw nor add new > > > > > > >>>>> functionality. > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Also, > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attempts to > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make issue-related code safer / cleaner / > > > > > > >> more > > > > > > >>>>>>> readable > > > > > > >>>>>>>> in > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> "real" > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pull > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requests are typically rejected, since they > > > > > > >>>>>> contradict > > > > > > >>>>>>>> our > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> current > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guidelines. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I understand this will require a bit more > > > > > > >>> effort > > > > > > >>>>>> from > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committer/maintainer, > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but otherwise we will get constantly > > > > > > >> degrading > > > > > > >>>>> code > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> quality. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018-04-24 18:52 GMT+03:00 Eduard Shangareev > > > > > > >> < > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eduard.shangar...@gmail.com > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> : > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vladimir, > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am not talking about > > > > > > >> massive/sophisticated > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> refactoring. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> But > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that ask to extract some methods should be > > > > > > >> OK > > > > > > >>>>> to > > > > > > >>>>>> do > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> without > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> an > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extra > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ticket. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A checklist shouldn't be necessarily a set > > > > > > >> of > > > > > > >>>>>>> certain > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> rules > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> but > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could include suggestion and reminders. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 6:39 PM, Vladimir > > > > > > >>>>> Ozerov < > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> voze...@gridgain.com> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ed, > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Refactoring is a separate task. If you > > > > > > >>> would > > > > > > >>>>>> like > > > > > > >>>>>>> to > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> rework > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exchange > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - please do this in a ticket "Refactor > > > > > > >>>>> exchange > > > > > > >>>>>>>> task", > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> nobody > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this. This is just a matter of creating > > > > > > >>>>> separate > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> ticket > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one have a time for refactoring, it > > > > > > >> should > > > > > > >>>>> not > > > > > > >>>>>> be > > > > > > >>>>>>> a > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> problem > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> him to > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spend several minutes on JIRA and GitHub. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As far as documentation - what you > > > > > > >> describe > > > > > > >>>>> is > > > > > > >>>>>>>> normal > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> review > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process, > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reviewer might want to ask contributor to > > > > > > >>> fix > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> something. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Checklist > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different thing - this is a set of rules > > > > > > >>>>> which > > > > > > >>>>>>> must > > > > > > >>>>>>>> be > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> followed > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do not understand how you can define > > > > > > >>>>>>> documentation > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> in > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> this > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checklist. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Same problem with logging - what is > > > > > > >>> "enough"? > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Eduard > > > > > > >>>>>>> Shangareev < > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eduard.shangar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters, > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't understand why you are so > > > > > > >> against > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> refactoring. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Code already smells like hell. Methods > > > > > > >>> 200+ > > > > > > >>>>>> line > > > > > > >>>>>>>> is > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> normal. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Exchange > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is asking to be separated on several > > > > > > >> one. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Transaction > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> code > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> few people. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we separate refactoring from > > > > > > >>>>> development it > > > > > > >>>>>>>> would > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> mean > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> that > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no one > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do it. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Documentation. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everything which was asked by reviewers > > > > > > >>> to > > > > > > >>>>>>> clarify > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> idea > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should be > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reflected > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the code. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) Logging. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Logging should be enough to > > > > > > >> troubleshoot > > > > > > >>>>> the > > > > > > >>>>>>>> problem > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> if > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comes > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user-list with an issue in the code. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 7:06 PM, Dmitry > > > > > > >>>>>> Pavlov < > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dpavlov....@gmail.com> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Igniters, > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 to idea of checklist. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 to refactoring and documenting > > > > > > >> code > > > > > > >>>>>> related > > > > > > >>>>>>>> to > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ticket > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> in > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +/-20 > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOC > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we start to do it as part of our > > > > > > >>>>> regular > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> contribution, > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better, it would became common > > > > > > >> practice > > > > > > >>>>> and > > > > > > >>>>>>> part > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> of > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Apache > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> development culure. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we will hope we will have free > > > > > > >> time > > > > > > >>> to > > > > > > >>>>>>> submit > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> separate > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patch > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someday > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have patience to complete > > > > > > >>>>> patch-submission > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> process, > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> code > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remain > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undocumented and poor-readable. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sincerely, > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пт, 20 апр. 2018 г. в 18:56, > > > > > > >> Александр > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Меньшиков < > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sharple...@gmail.com > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> : > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4) Metrics. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partially +1 > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It makes sense to have some minimal > > > > > > >>>>> code > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> coverage > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> for > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> new > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code in > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMHO. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, we can limit the cyclomatic > > > > > > >>>>>> complexity > > > > > > >>>>>>>> of > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> new > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6) Refactoring > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -1 > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I understand why people want to > > > > > > >>>>> refactor > > > > > > >>>>>> old > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> code. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I think refactoring should be > > > > > > >>>>> always a > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> separate > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> task. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And it's better to remove all > > > > > > >>>>> refactoring > > > > > > >>>>>>> from > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> PR, > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> if > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> it's > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the issue. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018-04-20 16:54 GMT+03:00 Andrey > > > > > > >>>>>> Kuznetsov > > > > > > >>>>>>> < > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stku...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What about adding the following > > > > > > >>> item > > > > > > >>>>> to > > > > > > >>>>>>> the > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> checklist: > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when the > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adds > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new functionality, then unit > > > > > > >> tests > > > > > > >>>>>> should > > > > > > >>>>>>>> also > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> be > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provided, if > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technically possible? > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for refactorings, in fact they > > > > > > >>> are > > > > > > >>>>>>>> strongly > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discouraged > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> today > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unclear reason. Let's permit to > > > > > > >>> make > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> refactorings > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> in > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checklist > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussed. (Of cource, > > > > > > >> refactoring > > > > > > >>>>>> should > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> relate > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solved.) > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018-04-20 16:16 GMT+03:00 > > > > > > >> Vladimir > > > > > > >>>>>>> Ozerov < > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> voze...@gridgain.com > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> : > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Ed, > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately some of these > > > > > > >>> points > > > > > > >>>>> are > > > > > > >>>>>>> not > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> good > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> candidates > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checklist because of these: > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - It must be clear and disallow > > > > > > >>>>>>> *multiple > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interpretations* > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - It must be *lightweight*, > > > > > > >>>>> otherwise > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Ignite > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> development > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> become a > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nightmare > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We cannot have "nice to have" > > > > > > >>>>> points > > > > > > >>>>>>> here. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Checklist > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question "is ticket eligible to > > > > > > >>> be > > > > > > >>>>>>>> merged?" > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Code style. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Documentation > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -1, it is impossible to define > > > > > > >>>>> what is > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "well-documented". A > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> piece > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could be obvious for one > > > > > > >>>>> contributor, > > > > > > >>>>>>> and > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> non-obvious > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case this is not a blocker for > > > > > > >>>>> merge. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Instead, > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> during > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ask > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementer to add more docs, > > > > > > >> but > > > > > > >>>>> it > > > > > > >>>>>>>> cannot > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> be > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> forced. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) Logging > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -1, same problem - what is > > > > > > >>> "enough > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> logging?". > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Enough > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whom? > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand whether it is enough > > > > > > >>> or > > > > > > >>>>>> not? > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4) Metrics > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -1, no clear boundaries, and > > > > > > >>>>> decision > > > > > > >>>>>> on > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> whether > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> metrics > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> added > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not should be performed during > > > > > > >>>>> design > > > > > > >>>>>>>> phase. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> As > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before, > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perfectly > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valid to ask contributor to add > > > > > > >>>>>> metrics > > > > > > >>>>>>>> with > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> clear > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why, > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this is not part of the > > > > > > >>> checklist. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5) TC status > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1, already mentioned > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6) Refactoring > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Strong -1. OOP is a slippery > > > > > > >>> slope, > > > > > > >>>>>>> there > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> are > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> no > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> good > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and bad > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> receipts > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all cases, hence it cannot be > > > > > > >>> used > > > > > > >>>>> in > > > > > > >>>>>> a > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> checklist. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can borrow useful rules from > > > > > > >>>>> p.2, > > > > > > >>>>>> p.3 > > > > > > >>>>>>>> and > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> p.4 > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> if > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clear > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions on how to measure > > > > > > >>> them. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vladimir. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:50 > > > > > > >> PM, > > > > > > >>>>>> Eduard > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Shangareev < > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eduard.shangar...@gmail.com> > > > > > > >>>>> wrote: > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, I want to add some > > > > > > >>>>> technical > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> requirement. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Code style. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The code needs to be > > > > > > >> formatted > > > > > > >>>>>>> according > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> to > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> coding > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guidelines > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
