Both patches were applied. Maxim, thank you! What about 1. An `Unexpected error during build messages processing in TeamCity`, what can we do as the next step to fix it?
Sincerely, Dmitriy Pavlov пн, 17 дек. 2018 г. в 18:31, Andrey Mashenkov <andrey.mashen...@gmail.com>: > Maxim, > > Looks ok. Let's apply IGNITE-10682. > > All, > > Also, I'd like to publish idea.logs into artefacts by default. > This will give us more details for investigation in future if any failure > will occurs. > It will costs 1-10 kB. > > On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 3:21 PM Maxim Muzafarov <maxmu...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Dmitry, > > > > It seems to me that we have two independent issues here. > > 1. An `Unexpected error during build messages processing in TeamCity` > > error message which is related to TC agent configuration. Suppose, > > server.log will provide us more details about it. I have to access > > there. > > 2. A new set of inspection rules was introduced in 2018+ IntelliJ IDEA > > and they should be disabled in our ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml > > configuration file. They are not fixed in the Apache Ignite project > > code yet. I've prepared the issue [1] for it. Please, take a look. > > > > > > Andrey, > > > > I've fixed disabled plugins file according to your suggestions. The > > issue [2] is ready. I've re-run `Excluded [Inspections] Core Debug` > > suite and the log details show me that now only 3 plugins are enabled: > > IDEA CORE, Maven Integration, Properties Support. It seems to me that > > it's correct. > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10709 > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10682 > > > > On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 at 15:22, Dmitriy Pavlov <dpav...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > Folks, > > > > > > There is a strange error on TC > > > > > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=2556875&buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore > > > > > > It appeared after TC update to the latest version. > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > Dmitry Pavlov > > > > > > пт, 14 дек. 2018 г. в 16:09, Andrey Mashenkov < > > andrey.mashen...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > Maxim, > > > > > > > > PR is incomplete. Some plugins should be disabled with different > > id\name. > > > > Maven plugin shouldn't be disabled as Idea Inspector use it to use > > Ignite > > > > project pom file. > > > > > > > > Please, find details in ticket. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 12:00 PM Andrey Mashenkov < > > > > andrey.mashen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Maxim, > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, I'll check PR and let you know about results. > > > > > > > > > > For now, Inspections task execution time looks much better (15-22 > > min), > > > > > but fluctuation is still noticeable. > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 11:13 AM Maxim Muzafarov < > maxmu...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Andrey, > > > > >> > > > > >> Thanks! I've consulted with the IntelliJ IDEA source code and > found > > > > >> how this disabled plugins file should look like. I've created a > new > > > > >> issue [1] and prepared PR [2] with the set of disabled plugins > > (maybe > > > > >> not complete set). I don't have access to change corresponding > > > > >> `~Excluded [Inspections] Core Debug` test suite properties. > > > > >> Can we test this PR? > > > > >> > > > > >> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10682 > > > > >> [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5666 > > > > >> On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 at 17:35, Andrey Mashenkov > > > > >> <andrey.mashen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Maxim, > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Idea has a file in config directory > ./config/disabled_plugins.txt > > , > > > > you > > > > >> can easily find it at you local machine. > > > > >> > Teamcity Inspections runner has an option "Disabled plugins" > where > > > > >> disabled_plugins.txt file content can be set. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > So, looks like we can disable useless plugins. > > > > >> > But I'm not expert and can't suggest changes we can safely > apply. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 4:59 PM Maxim Muzafarov < > > maxmu...@gmail.com> > > > > >> wrote: > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> Andrey, > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> Thank you for solving this issue with GC pauses! I've checked > the > > > > >> >> given report. The inspections configuration is correct, but it > > seems > > > > >> >> to me that we have enabled by default rules of included plugins > > (for > > > > >> >> instance, KotlinInternalInJava in the report is enabled). > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> Can you share more details about `disable plugin` option you > > found? > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> I see that idea instance starts with the default > > -Didea.plugins.path > > > > >> >> system property, can we change it so the plugins will be not > > loaded > > > > by > > > > >> >> default? > > > > >> >> On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 at 15:45, Andrey Mashenkov > > > > >> >> <andrey.mashen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > Maxim, > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > It looks like we can't make logs more verbose due to possible > > bug, > > > > >> I've create a ticket in Jetbrains Jira [1]. > > > > >> >> > We can just publish idea logs in artefacts as suggested in > this > > > > >> manual [2]. > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > For now, Inspections logs looks like this one [3]. > > > > >> >> > Also, would you please to take a look at inspection report > and > > > > check > > > > >> if we missed smth and there are any unwanted inspection turned on. > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > [1] https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/TW-58422 > > > > >> >> > [2] > > > > >> > > > > > > > https://confluence.jetbrains.com/display/TCD10/Reporting+Issues#ReportingIssues-IntelliJIDEAInspections > > > > >> >> > [3] > > > > >> > > > > > > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=2538111&buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_ExcludedInspections2&tab=artifacts > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 3:19 PM Dmitriy Pavlov < > > dpav...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> Maxim M, do you know if we can disable inspections by > > wildcard? > > > > E.g. > > > > >> >> >> Android* ? > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> чт, 13 дек. 2018 г. в 14:59, Andrey Mashenkov < > > > > >> andrey.mashen...@gmail.com>: > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > Fixed memory issues with increasing heap size and forcing > > G1GC. > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > Do we need all these plugins loaded for inspections? > > > > >> >> >> > I've found a 'disable plugin' option in TC Inspections > build > > > > >> configuration, > > > > >> >> >> > but it is unclear how to disable plugin correctly. > > > > >> >> >> > Can someone take over this? > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > 46 plugins initialized in 1031 ms > > > > >> >> >> > > 2018-12-13 10:55:24,875 [ 1342] INFO - > > > > >> llij.ide.plugins.PluginManager - > > > > >> >> >> > > Loaded bundled plugins: Android Support (10.2.3), Ant > > Support > > > > >> (1.0), CSS > > > > >> >> >> > > Support (172.4574.11), Database Tools and SQL > > (172.4574.11), > > > > >> Eclipse > > > > >> >> >> > > Integration (3.0), FreeMarker support (1.0), GWT Support > > > > (1.0), > > > > >> Gradle > > > > >> >> >> > > (172.4574.11), Groovy (9.0), Guice (8.0), HTML Tools > > (2.0), > > > > >> Hibernate > > > > >> >> >> > > Support (1.0), I18n for Java (172.4574.11), IDEA CORE > > > > >> (172.4574.11), > > > > >> >> >> > > IntelliLang (8.0), JBoss Seam Support (1.0), JUnit > (1.0), > > Java > > > > >> EE: Bean > > > > >> >> >> > > Validation Support (1.1), Java EE: Contexts and > Dependency > > > > >> Injection > > > > >> >> >> > (1.1), > > > > >> >> >> > > Java EE: EJB, JPA, Servlets (1.0), Java EE: Java Server > > Faces > > > > >> (2.2.X.), > > > > >> >> >> > > Java EE: Web Services (JAX-WS) (1.9), Java Server Pages > > (JSP) > > > > >> Integration > > > > >> >> >> > > (1.0), JavaScript Support (1.0), Kotlin > > > > >> (1.1.4-release-IJ2017.2-3), Maven > > > > >> >> >> > > Integration (172.4574.11), Persistence Frameworks > Support > > > > >> (1.0), Plugin > > > > >> >> >> > > DevKit (1.0), Properties Support (172.4574.11), > QuirksMode > > > > >> (172.4574.11), > > > > >> >> >> > > Spring AOP/@AspectJ (1.0), Spring Batch (1.0), Spring > Data > > > > >> (1.0), Spring > > > > >> >> >> > > Integration Patterns (1.0), Spring Security (1.0), > Spring > > > > >> Support (1.0), > > > > >> >> >> > > Spring Web Flow (1.0), Spring Web Services (1.0), Struts > > 1.x > > > > >> (2.0), > > > > >> >> >> > Struts > > > > >> >> >> > > 2 (1.0), TestNG-J (8.0), UI Designer (172.4574.11), > > Velocity > > > > >> support > > > > >> >> >> > (1.0), > > > > >> >> >> > > W3C Validators (2.0), WebLogic Integration (1.0), > > XPathView + > > > > >> XSLT > > > > >> >> >> > Support > > > > >> >> >> > > (4) > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > Kotlin plugins fails to start, let's disable it. > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > 2018-12-13 10:55:27,623 [ 4090] INFO - > > > > >> >> >> > il.indexing.FileBasedIndexImpl - Rebuild requested for > index > > > > >> >> >> > > > org.jetbrains.kotlin.idea.versions.KotlinJvmMetadataVersionIndex > > > > >> >> >> > > java.lang.Throwable > > > > >> >> >> > > at > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > com.intellij.util.indexing.FileBasedIndex.requestRebuild(FileBasedIndex.java:68) > > > > >> >> >> > > at > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > org.jetbrains.kotlin.idea.versions.KotlinUpdatePluginComponent.initComponent(KotlinUpdatePluginComponent.kt:54) > > > > >> >> >> > > at > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > com.intellij.openapi.components.impl.ComponentManagerImpl$ComponentConfigComponentAdapter.getComponentInstance(ComponentManagerImpl.java:492) > > > > >> >> >> > > at > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > com.intellij.openapi.components.impl.ComponentManagerImpl.createComponents(ComponentManagerImpl.java:118) > > > > >> >> >> > > at > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.a(ApplicationImpl.java:462) > > > > >> >> >> > > at > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.createComponents(ApplicationImpl.java:466) > > > > >> >> >> > > at > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > com.intellij.openapi.components.impl.ComponentManagerImpl.init(ComponentManagerImpl.java:102) > > > > >> >> >> > > at > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.load(ApplicationImpl.java:421) > > > > >> >> >> > > at > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.load(ApplicationImpl.java:407) > > > > >> >> >> > > at > > > > >> com.intellij.idea.IdeaApplication.run(IdeaApplication.java:203) > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 1:45 PM Dmitriy Pavlov < > > > > >> dpav...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > Sure, let's apply. I hope all TC agents may handle 4G > > heap. > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > чт, 13 дек. 2018 г. в 12:54, Andrey Mashenkov < > > > > >> >> >> > andrey.mashen...@gmail.com > > > > >> >> >> > > >: > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > Guys, > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > I've just creates a copy of Inspections TC build task > > with > > > > GC > > > > >> logs > > > > >> >> >> > turned > > > > >> >> >> > > > on to check if there is any issues > > > > >> >> >> > > > and found Inspections task spent too much time in STW > > due to > > > > >> long Full > > > > >> >> >> > GC > > > > >> >> >> > > > pauses. > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > I've tried to increase Xmx up to 4Gb and use G1GC got > 2+ > > > > >> times better > > > > >> >> >> > > > execution time down to ~15 min (~17 for 2G heap). > > > > >> >> >> > > > Increasing heap size only is not very helpful as it > just > > > > >> postpone Full > > > > >> >> >> > GC > > > > >> >> >> > > > issues, but changing GC to G1GC gives noticeable > result. > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > Let's apply this optimization. > > > > >> >> >> > > > Thoughts? > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 12:43 PM Vyacheslav Daradur < > > > > >> >> >> > daradu...@gmail.com> > > > > >> >> >> > > > wrote: > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > Hi, Maxim, Nikolay, I have the following questions > > > > regarding > > > > >> >> >> > > inspections: > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > Should 'gnite_inspections_teamcity.xml' been > imported > > into > > > > >> IDEA, > > > > >> >> >> > since > > > > >> >> >> > > > > 'ignite_inspections.xml' has been removed in actual > > > > master? > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > Also, I've faced mismatching: if I use > > > > >> >> >> > > > > '@SuppressWarnings("ErrorNotRethrown")' in code, > then > > this > > > > >> will be > > > > >> >> >> > > > > marked on TC as "Redundant suppression". If I > removed > > this > > > > >> >> >> > suppression > > > > >> >> >> > > > > in "main" code base (not in tests) then it's fine > and > > IDE > > > > >> does not > > > > >> >> >> > > > > mark the code by inspection. But, if I use > > > > >> >> >> > > > > 'GridTestUtils#assertThrows' in 'tests' code base, > > then > > > > IDE > > > > >> requires > > > > >> >> >> > > > > to suppress the inspection, if I have done it then > TC > > > > marks > > > > >> this as > > > > >> >> >> > > > > "Redundant suppression". > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > What should I do in this case? > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 10:26 PM Andrey Mashenkov > > > > >> >> >> > > > > <andrey.mashen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > Hi, > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > Have someone tried to investigate the issue > related > > to > > > > >> Inspection > > > > >> >> >> > TC > > > > >> >> >> > > > task > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > execution time variation (from 0.5 up to 1,5 > hours)? > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > Can we enable GC logs for this task or may be even > > get > > > > >> CPU, Disk, > > > > >> >> >> > > > Network > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > metrics? > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > Can someone check if there are unnecessary Idea > > plugins > > > > >> starts that > > > > >> >> >> > > can > > > > >> >> >> > > > > be > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > safely disabled? > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 5:52 PM Dmitriy Pavlov < > > > > >> dpav...@apache.org > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > wrote: > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > I'm totally with you in this decision, let's > move > > the > > > > >> file. > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > вт, 27 нояб. 2018 г. в 16:24, Maxim Muzafarov < > > > > >> >> >> > maxmu...@gmail.com > > > > >> >> >> > > >: > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > Igniters, > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > I propose to make inspection configuration > > default > > > > on > > > > >> the > > > > >> >> >> > project > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > level. I've created a new issue [1] for it. It > > can > > > > be > > > > >> easily > > > > >> >> >> > done > > > > >> >> >> > > > and > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > recommend by IntelliJ documentation [2]. > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > Vyacheslav, > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > Can you share an example of your warnings? > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > Currently, we have different inspection > > > > >> configurations: > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > - ignite_inspections.xml - to import > > inspections as > > > > >> default and > > > > >> >> >> > > use > > > > >> >> >> > > > > it > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > daily. > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > - ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml - config to > > run it > > > > >> on TC. > > > > >> >> >> > Only > > > > >> >> >> > > > > fixed > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > rules in the project code are enabled. Each of > > these > > > > >> rules are > > > > >> >> >> > > > marked > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > with ERROR level. > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > [1] > > > > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10422 > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > [2] > > > > >> https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/code-inspection.html > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 at 13:58, Nikolay Izhikov > < > > > > >> >> >> > > nizhi...@apache.org > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > Hello, Vyacheslav. > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > Yes, we have. > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > Maxim Muzafarov, can you fix it, please? > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > вт, 20 нояб. 2018 г., 13:10 Vyacheslav > Daradur > > > > >> >> >> > > > daradu...@gmail.com > > > > >> >> >> > > > > : > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > Guys, why we have 2 different inspection > > files > > > > in > > > > >> the repo? > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > idea\ignite_inspections.xml > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > idea\ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > AFAIK TeamCity is able to use the same > > > > inspection > > > > >> file with > > > > >> >> >> > > > IDE. > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > I've imported > 'idea\ignite_inspections.xml' > > in > > > > >> the IDE, but > > > > >> >> >> > > now > > > > >> >> >> > > > > see > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > inspection warnings for my PR on TC > because > > of > > > > >> different > > > > >> >> >> > > rules. > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 6:06 PM Maxim > > Muzafarov > > > > < > > > > >> >> >> > > > > maxmu...@gmail.com> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Yakov, Dmitry, > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Which example of unsuccessful suite > > execution > > > > >> do we need? > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Does the current fail [1] in the master > > branch > > > > >> enough to > > > > >> >> >> > > > > configure > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > notifications by TC.Bot? > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Please consider adding more checks > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > - line endings. I think we should only > > have > > > > \n > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > - ensure blank line at the end of file > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > It seems to me that `line endings` is > > easy to > > > > >> add, but > > > > >> >> >> > for > > > > >> >> >> > > > the > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > `blank > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > line at the end` we need as special > > regexp. > > > > Can > > > > >> we focus > > > > >> >> >> > on > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > built-in > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > IntelliJ inspections at first and fix > > others > > > > >> special > > > > >> >> >> > > further? > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E&tab=buildTypeStatusDiv > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 at 17:55, Maxim > > Muzafarov > > > > < > > > > >> >> >> > > > > maxmu...@gmail.com> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters, > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Since the inspection rules are > included > > in > > > > >> RunAll a few > > > > >> >> >> > > > > members > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > of > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > the > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > community mentioned a wide distributed > > > > >> execution time > > > > >> >> >> > on > > > > >> >> >> > > TC > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > agents: > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > - 1h:27m:38s publicagent17_9094 > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > - 38m:04s publicagent17_9094 > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > - 33m:29s publicagent17_9094 > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > - 17m:13s publicagent17_9094 > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > It seems that we should configure the > > > > >> resources > > > > >> >> >> > > > distribution > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > across TC > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > containers. Can anyone take a look at > > it? > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > I've also prepared the short list of > > rules > > > > to > > > > >> work on: > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Inconsistent line separators (6 > > matches) > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Problematic whitespace (4 matches) > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + expression.equals("literal")' rather > > than > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > '"literal".equals(expression) (53 > > matches) > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Unnecessary 'null' check before > > > > 'instanceof' > > > > >> >> >> > expression > > > > >> >> >> > > > or > > > > >> >> >> > > > > call > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > (42 > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > matches) > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Redundant 'if' statement (69 > matches) > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Redundant interface declaration (28 > > > > matches) > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Double negation (0 matches) > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Unnecessary code block (472 matches) > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Line is longer than allowed by code > > style > > > > >> (2614 > > > > >> >> >> > > matches) > > > > >> >> >> > > > > (Is it > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > possible to implement?) > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT? > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 23:43, Dmitriy > > > > Pavlov < > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > dpavlov....@gmail.com> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Maxim, > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > thank you for your efforts to make > > this > > > > >> happen. Keep > > > > >> >> >> > > the > > > > >> >> >> > > > > pace! > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please provide an example > > of how > > > > >> >> >> > Inspections > > > > >> >> >> > > > can > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > fail, > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > so > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > I or > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > another contributor could implement > > > > support > > > > >> of these > > > > >> >> >> > > > > failures > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > validation in > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the Tc Bot. > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > пт, 26 окт. 2018 г. в 18:27, Yakov > > > > Zhdanov < > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > yzhda...@apache.org > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >: > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maxim, > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for response, let's do it > > the way > > > > >> you > > > > >> >> >> > > suggested. > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please consider adding more checks > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - line endings. I think we should > > only > > > > >> have \n > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - ensure blank line in the end of > > file > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > All these are code reviews issues > I > > > > >> pointed out > > > > >> >> >> > many > > > > >> >> >> > > > > times > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > when > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > reviewing > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > conributions. It would be cool if > we > > > > have > > > > >> TC build > > > > >> >> >> > > > > failing if > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > there is any. > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --Yakov > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D. > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > -- > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > Best regards, > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > -- > > > > >> >> >> > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D. > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > -- > > > > >> >> >> > > > Best regards, > > > > >> >> >> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > -- > > > > >> >> >> > Best regards, > > > > >> >> >> > Andrey V. Mashenkov > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > -- > > > > >> >> > Best regards, > > > > >> >> > Andrey V. Mashenkov > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > -- > > > > >> > Best regards, > > > > >> > Andrey V. Mashenkov > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Best regards, > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov > > > > > > > > > -- > Best regards, > Andrey V. Mashenkov >
