ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov....@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Code inspection
Date Wed, 28 Mar 2018 16:08:44 GMT
Inspection suites should be failed manually by some fail condition.

This question will become actual in future. How to fail such suite on TC?

ср, 28 мар. 2018 г. в 18:54, Anton Vinogradov <av@apache.org>:

> Peter,
>
> Why 44 errors are green?
>
>
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1145974&tab=buildResultsDiv&buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsAop
>
> 2018-03-28 16:27 GMT+03:00 Petr Ivanov <mr.weider@gmail.com>:
>
> > 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