Nikolay, > Should the community spend TC resources for prototype? Why not? I think it is not bad idea to run all tests against some changes into core classes. If I have a clever idea which is easy to test drive I can do couple of prototype-test iterations. If tests shows me that everything is bad then the idea was not so clever and easy. But if I was lucky then I should discuss the idea with other Igniters. I think it is the cheapest way to check the idea because the check is fully automated. Requiring a human feedback is much more expensive in my opinion. > But, If our code style is not convinient for every day coding for many > contributors, should you initiate discussion to change it? Generally I am fine with our codestyle requirements.
Also, I would like to keep a focus on the subject. Could you please outline the benefits you see of failing compilation and skipping tests execution if inspections detect a problem? чт, 14 февр. 2019 г. в 14:14, Nikolay Izhikov <nizhi...@apache.org>: > > Hello, Ivan. > > > Requirements for a prototype code are not the same as for a patch ready > to merge > > True. > > > I do not see much need in writing good javadocs for prototype. > > We, as a community, can't force you to do it. > > > Why should I stub it to be able run any build on TC? > > Should the community spend TC resources for prototype? > You always can check tests for your prototype locally. > > And when it's ready, at least from code style point of view run it on TC. > > I, personally, always try to follow project code style, even for prototypes. > But, If our code style is not convinient for every day coding for many > contributors, should you initiate discussion to change it? > > > ср, 13 февр. 2019 г. в 16:45, Павлухин Иван <vololo...@gmail.com>: > > > Maxim, > > > > Oh, my poor tabs.. Joke. > > > > I am totally ok with currently enabled checks. But I am mostly > > concerned about a general approach. I would like to outline one thing. > > Requirements for a prototype code are not the same as for a patch > > ready to merge (see a little bit more in the end of that message). > > > > We have a document defining code style which every contributor should > > follow [1]. And many points can be checked automatically. Personally, > > I do not see much need in writing good javadocs for prototype. Why > > should I stub it to be able run any build on TC? > > > > Also, we a have a review process which should be applied to every > > patch. Partially it is described in [2]. And due to this process every > > patch should not introduce new failures on TC. So, the patch should > > not be merged if inspections failed. > > > > P.S. Something more about prototypes and production code. There is a > > common bad practice in software engineering. It is turning prototypes > > into production code. Often it is much faster to create a prototype by > > price of violating some rules of writing "clean code". And often > > prototype after successful piloting is turned into production code. > > And it is very easy in practice to keep some pieces of initially > > "dirty" prototype code. I believe human factor plays a great role > > here. How should it be done right then? In my opinion good production > > code should be designed as "good production code" from the beginning. > > So, only ideas are taken from the prototype and a code is fully > > rewritten. > > > > [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Coding+Guidelines > > [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Review+Checklist > > > > ср, 13 февр. 2019 г. в 15:05, Maxim Muzafarov <maxmu...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > Ivan, > > > > > > As the first implementation of this addition, I'd prefer to make it > > > working like _Licenses Headers_ suite check. It will fail when some of > > > the code style checks violated. Moreover, these licenses header checks > > > can be included in the checkstyle plugin configuration. > > > > > > In general, I'd prefer to have a compilation fail error with code > > > style checks and after we will get a stable checkstyle suite I propose > > > to change it in a "compilation error" way. If we are talking about the > > > coding style convenient for most of the community members I see no > > > difference with coding sketches or production-ready branches equally. > > > Indeed, no one will be against unused imports [or spaces instead of > > > tabs :-) ] in their PRs or prototypes, right? (for instance, it can be > > > automatically removed by IDE at commit phase). > > > > > > Please, note currently enabled checks are: > > > - list.isEmpty() instead of list.size() == 0 > > > - unused imports > > > - missing @Override > > > - sotred modifiers checks (e.g. pulic static final ..) > > > - redundunt suppersion checks > > > - spaces insted of tabs. > > > > > > Are you really what to violate these checks in your sketches? Hope not > > :-) > > > > > > On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 at 10:25, Nikolay Izhikov <nizhi...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Actually, I dont see anything wrong with failing *compilation* task. > > > > > > > > I think one should use project code style for everyday coding, not > > only for > > > > ready-to-merge PRs. > > > > > > > > If we cant use code style for everyday coding, we should change the > > > > codestyle. > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > ср, 13 февр. 2019 г., 10:11 Petr Ivanov mr.wei...@gmail.com: > > > > > > > > > I guess that was about failing build configuration with Checkstype, > > not > > > > > compilation build itself. > > > > > > > > > > > On 12 Feb 2019, at 18:03, Павлухин Иван <vololo...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks, > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you going to fail job compiling Ignite sources [1] if some > > > > > > inspection found a problem? Can we avoid it? It is quite common > > > > > > pattern to start some feature implementation with making a sketch > > and > > > > > > running tests against it. I found it convenient to skip some style > > > > > > requirements for such sketches (e.g. well formed javadocs). > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_BuildApacheIgnite > > > > > > > > > > > > пн, 11 февр. 2019 г. в 11:38, Nikolay Izhikov <nizhi...@apache.org > > >: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Petr, we should have 1 configuration for project, may be 1 > > configuration > > > > > >> per programming language. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> пн, 11 февр. 2019 г., 11:33 Petr Ivanov mr.wei...@gmail.com: > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> I was asking about how many build configuration is intended? One > > for > > > > > all > > > > > >>> and multiple per module? > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> With IDEA inspections it was going to be build configuration per > > > > > module. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> On 11 Feb 2019, at 11:24, Nikolay Izhikov <nizhi...@apache.org> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> Hello, Petr. > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> Are you saying that we have not single build task? And each > > module > > > > > builds > > > > > >>>> when it required? If yes, then I propose to create a task like > > > > > "Licence > > > > > >>>> check" which will be run for every patch. > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> My point is that violation of codestyle should be treated as > > hard as > > > > > >>>> compile error. > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> пн, 11 февр. 2019 г., 11:16 Petr Ivanov mr.wei...@gmail.com: > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> Is build configuration Inspections [Core] meant to transform > > into > > > > > single > > > > > >>>>> all-modules check build configuration (without module > > subdivision)? > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> On 11 Feb 2019, at 11:02, Nikolay Izhikov < > > nizhi...@apache.org> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> Hello, Maxim. > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> +1 from me for migrating to checkstyle. > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> Oleg, there is plugin for IDEA with 2mln downloads - > > > > > >>>>>> https://plugins.jetbrains.com/plugin/1065-checkstyle-idea > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> I propose do the following: > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> 1. Migrate current checks to checkstyle. > > > > > >>>>>> 2. Apply checks to all Ignite modules. Currently, only core > > module > > > > > are > > > > > >>>>>> checked. > > > > > >>>>>> I will review and commit this patch, or do it by my own. > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> 3. Include code style checks to "Build Apache Ignite" suite. > > Ignite > > > > > has > > > > > >>>>> to > > > > > >>>>>> fail to build if patch violates codestyle. > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> вс, 10 февр. 2019 г. в 07:54, Павлухин Иван < > > vololo...@gmail.com>: > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> Hi, > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> I also think that some warning from IDEA that some code > > style rule > > > > > is > > > > > >>>>>>> violated is a must-have. > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> вс, 10 февр. 2019 г. в 01:58, oignatenko < > > oignate...@gridgain.com > > > > > >: > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Hi Maxim, > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> I believe that whatever style checks we establish at > > Teamcity, we > > > > > >>>>> better > > > > > >>>>>>>> take care of making it easy for developers to find and fix > > > > > violations > > > > > >>>>> in > > > > > >>>>>>>> their typical dev environment (for Ignite this means, in > > IDEA). I > > > > > >>> think > > > > > >>>>>>> it > > > > > >>>>>>>> is important that developers can maintain required style > > with > > > > > minimal > > > > > >>>>>>> effort > > > > > >>>>>>>> on their side. > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> If above is doable then I am 200% for migrating our Teamcity > > > > > >>>>> inspections > > > > > >>>>>>> to > > > > > >>>>>>>> checkstyle / maven. > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> This is because I am very disappointed observing how it > > stays > > > > > broken > > > > > >>>>> for > > > > > >>>>>>> so > > > > > >>>>>>>> long. And worst of all, even when (if) it is fixed, I feel > > we will > > > > > >>>>>>> always be > > > > > >>>>>>>> at risk that it breaks again and that we will have to again > > wait > > > > > for > > > > > >>>>>>> months > > > > > >>>>>>>> for it to be fixed. > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> This is such a stark contrast with my experience regarding > > > > > checkstyle > > > > > >>>>>>> based > > > > > >>>>>>>> inspections. These just work and you just never fear that > > it is > > > > > going > > > > > >>>>> to > > > > > >>>>>>>> break for some obscure reason, this is so much better than > > what I > > > > > >>>>> observe > > > > > >>>>>>>> now. > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> One suggestion in case if we pick checkstyle - I recommend > > keeping > > > > > >>> its > > > > > >>>>>>>> config file somewhere in the project under version control. > > I > > > > > used to > > > > > >>>>>>>> maintain such a shared style config at one of past jobs and > > after > > > > > >>> some > > > > > >>>>>>>> experimenting it turned out most convenient to have it this > > way - > > > > > so > > > > > >>>>> that > > > > > >>>>>>>> developers could easily assess and discuss style settings > > and keep > > > > > >>>>> track > > > > > >>>>>>> of > > > > > >>>>>>>> changes in these. (note how Kafka folks from your link [5] > > appear > > > > > to > > > > > >>> be > > > > > >>>>>>>> doing it this way) > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> regards, Oleg > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Mmuzaf wrote > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Igniters, > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> I've found that some of the community members have faced > > with > > > > > >>>>>>>>> `[Inspections] Core suite [1]` is not working well enough > > on TC. > > > > > The > > > > > >>>>>>>>> suite has a `FAILED` status for more than 2 months due to > > some > > > > > >>> issues > > > > > >>>>>>>>> in TeamCity application [2]. Current suite behaviour > > confuses not > > > > > >>> only > > > > > >>>>>>>>> new contributors but also other community members. > > Moreover, this > > > > > >>>>>>>>> suite is no longer checks rules we previously configured. > > For > > > > > >>>>>>>>> instance, in the master branch, I've found 11 `Unused > > imports` > > > > > which > > > > > >>>>>>>>> should have been caught earlier (e.g. for > > > > > >>>>>>>>> {{IgniteCachePutAllRestartTest} [3]). > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> I think we should make the next step to enable an > > automatic code > > > > > >>> style > > > > > >>>>>>>>> checks. As an example, we can consider the Apache Kafka > > code > > > > > style > > > > > >>> [5] > > > > > >>>>>>>>> way and configure for the Ignite project a > > > > > maven-checkstyle-plugin > > > > > >>>>>>>>> with its own maven profile and run it simultaneously with > > other > > > > > TC. > > > > > >>> We > > > > > >>>>>>>>> can also enable the previously configured inspection > > rules, so no > > > > > >>>>>>>>> coding style violations will be missed. > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> I see some advantages of using a maven plugin: > > > > > >>>>>>>>> - an IDE agnostic way for code checks > > > > > >>>>>>>>> - can be used with different CI and build tools (Jenkins, > > TC) > > > > > >>>>>>>>> - executable from the command line > > > > > >>>>>>>>> - the entry single point to configure new rules > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> I've created the ticket [4] and will prepare PR for it. > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> WDYT? > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> [1] > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E&tab=buildTypeStatusDiv > > > > > >>>>>>>>> [2] https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/TW-58504 > > > > > >>>>>>>>> [3] > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/core/src/test/java/org/apache/ignite/internal/processors/cache/IgniteCachePutAllRestartTest.java#L29 > > > > > >>>>>>>>> [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11277 > > > > > >>>>>>>>> [5] https://github.com/apache/kafka/tree/trunk/checkstyle > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 at 16:03, Petr Ivanov < > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> mr.weider@ > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > wrote: > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> It seems there is bug in latest 2018.2 TeamCity > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Bug is filed [1] > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [1] https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/TW-58504 > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On 19 Dec 2018, at 11:31, Petr Ivanov < > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> mr.weider@ > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > wrote: > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Investigating problem, stand by. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 Dec 2018, at 19:41, Dmitriy Pavlov < > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> dpavlov@ > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > wrote: > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 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 > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [cut] > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> -- > > > > > >>>>>>>> Sent from: > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/ > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> -- > > > > > >>>>>>> Best regards, > > > > > >>>>>>> Ivan Pavlukhin > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > Ivan Pavlukhin > > -- Best regards, Ivan Pavlukhin
