ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Petr Ivanov <mr.wei...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Code inspection
Date Wed, 28 Mar 2018 13:27:21 GMT
After several problems, example run on Aleksey’s configuration is complete: https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1164652
<https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1164652>


> On 28 Mar 2018, at 10:28, Petr Ivanov <mr.weider@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Started https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1164002 <https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewQueued.html?itemId=1163998>
with Aleksey’s inspections profile.
> Core (long) and AOP (short) modules will be tested as example.
> 
> 
> 
>> On 27 Mar 2018, at 19:38, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov.spb@gmail.com <mailto:dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>>
wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Petr,
>> 
>> Could you please take inspections and run it on AI code base in
>> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E&tab=buildTypeStatusDiv
<https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E&tab=buildTypeStatusDiv>
>> ?
>> 
>> Sincerely,
>> Dmitriy Pavlov
>> 
>> вт, 27 мар. 2018 г. в 19:27, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>:
>> 
>>> Alexey, thank you for bring this topic to top.
>>> 
>>> What do you think about committing this inspections into Ignite code base?
>>> 
>>> What can be our next steps after demonstrating CI check is possible
>>> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E&tab=buildTypeStatusDiv
>>> ?
>>> 
>>> Sincerely,
>>> Dmitriy Pavlov
>>> 
>>> вт, 27 мар. 2018 г. в 15:28, Alexey Goncharuk <alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
>>>> :
>>> 
>>>> Bumping up.
>>>> 
>>>> Attached is my local inspections profile exported from Idea. Let's run
>>>> the first iteration and check if it differs significantly from other
>>>> community members.
>>>> 
>>>> --AG
>>>> 
>>>> 2018-03-19 16:39 GMT+03:00 Petr Ivanov <mr.weider@gmail.com>:
>>>> 
>>>>> Filed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7985 <
>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7985> [1].
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 18 Mar 2018, at 00:56, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hello Petr,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Many members of the community would appreciate such additional code
>>>>> control, and it's a pity that no one made this happen. Agree?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Could you please pick up this activity?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It might be an idea to create 'IDEA Inspections' step to be run in
>>>>> parallel with 'Build Apache Ignite'. WDYT? Would it work?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>> Dmitriy Pavlov
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> https://confluence.jetbrains.com/display/TCD10/Inspections <
>>>>> https://confluence.jetbrains.com/display/TCD10/Inspections>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> пн, 12 мар. 2018 г. в 14:37, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov.spb@gmail.com
>>>>> <mailto:dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>>:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi Dmitriy,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> would you pick up this activity?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>> Dmitriy Pavlov
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 14:09, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov.spb@gmail.com
>>>>> <mailto:dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>>:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>>> What I can suggest now it is to take XML file with existing as is
from
>>>>> previous topic (I remember someone in community already prepared settings)
>>>>> and set up TeamCity Run configuration as part of Run All Basic Tests
(per
>>>>> commit basis).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If we don’t have XML, I suggest to enable build-in Idea inspections
>>>>> 'as is' on TeamCity and iteratively improve it according to found issues.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Dmitriy G., would you prepare PR and proof-of-concept TC run
>>>>> configuration?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> As discussion became really active, I think that means community
is
>>>>> interested in static code checks.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 14:08, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov.spb@gmail.com
>>>>> <mailto:dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>>:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>>> I was thinking about some quick check, which will automatically
>>>>> require minimum runs. Now, any committer can push changes to the master,
>>>>> which break not only the inspection and style, but even the compilation.
If
>>>>> this control would be automatic, it can allow us make codebase better
quite
>>>>> fast. But I am afraid it is not realistic.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 13:42, Petr Ivanov <mr.weider@gmail.com
<mailto:
>>>>> mr.weider@gmail.com>>:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>>> Sonar is powerful, yes, but it’s power in thoroughness. I.e. it
does
>>>>> its job well in cases of leisurely post-build analysis.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I’d suggest we use it (if we will use it) in the following scenarios:
>>>>>> — some basic checks Sonar profile for Blocker bugs (it is fast)
—
>>>>> something that cannot be passed to master;
>>>>>> — nightly or even weekly run with Full Sonar profile (600+ checks
>>>>> from Firebug, Codestyle, Coverage, etc.) for regression and overall code
>>>>> quality improvement goals.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Did not quite get you about push-to-master prohibition. Can you
>>>>> explain scenario in more details?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 6 Mar 2018, at 13:27, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov.spb@gmail.com
>>>>> <mailto:dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Petr, I've heard Sonar is powerful tool.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Would it help us to prohibit commits to master w/o test run /
too
>>>>> much
>>>>>>> failed tests / too much inspection errors appeared?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 13:22, Alexey Goncharuk <
>>>>> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com <mailto:alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>>:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Dmitriy,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I like this idea a lot. For example, the inspection profile
should
>>>>> have
>>>>>>>> inspection 'Anonymous class can be converted to lambda' disabled
>>>>> because
>>>>>>>> quite a lot of such classes can be sent over the network
(although
>>>>> even
>>>>>>>> anonymous classes are discourage for such purposes).
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I believe we can start with sharing somehow one of the profiles
and
>>>>> then
>>>>>>>> iteratively improving it until the community is satisfied
with the
>>>>> result.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 2018-03-06 12:06 GMT+03:00 Petr Ivanov <mr.weider@gmail.com
<mailto:
>>>>> mr.weider@gmail.com>>:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> We can use Sonar as instrument for code analysis and
test coverage
>>>>>>>>> inspections.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On 6 Mar 2018, at 11:28, Dmitriy Govorukhin <
>>>>>>>>> dmitriy.govorukhin@gmail.com <mailto:dmitriy.govorukhin@gmail.com>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy,
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> As I understood, preview topic was of static code
analysis in
>>>>> general.
>>>>>>>>>> In this topic, I want to discuss only idea inspection
rule.
>>>>>>>>>> In future, of course, we can expаnd this rule to
the TeamCity
>>>>> build.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:16 AM, Nikolay Izhikov <
>>>>> nizhikov@apache.org <mailto:nizhikov@apache.org>>
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Igniters.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> +1 to automatic code style tools.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Let's make it already!
>>>>>>>>>>> Do we have a ticket for it?
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Related discussion -
>>>>> 
>>>>>>> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble <
>>>>> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble/>.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> com/Static-code-analysis-for-Java-td22195.html
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> В Вт, 06/03/2018 в 08:15 +0000, Dmitry Pavlov
пишет:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Dmitriy,
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should resurrect thread about
addition of code
>>>>>>>> inspections,
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> later we can enable automatic control step
to TeamCity.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you help me to find it?
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 11:11, Dmitriy
Govorukhin <
>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> dmitriy.govorukhin@gmail.com <mailto:dmitriy.govorukhin@gmail.com
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do we have 'inspection' [1] scheme for
ignite?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see a lot of warnings in my code, and
I guess it is because
>>>>>>>> everyone
>>>>>>>>>>> uses
>>>>>>>>>>>>> different schemes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's start the discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] IDEA inspection
>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/code-inspection.html
<
>>>>> https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/code-inspection.html>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
> 


Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message