ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Павлухин Иван <vololo...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Code inspection
Date Mon, 03 Jun 2019 17:48:52 GMT
Nikolay,

> This is violation of Ignite code style, so we should fix it for now.
> If we decide to change code style, we can change check.

I wonder if it technically feasible. Do know is it possible to permit
no empty line before a class field?

пн, 3 июн. 2019 г. в 16:56, Nikolay Izhikov <nizhikov@apache.org>:
>
> Hello, Ivan.
>
> > For me fields without extra empty lines between them look fine.
>
> This is violation of Ignite code style, so we should fix it for now.
> If we decide to change code style, we can change check.
>
> > Can/should we enforce no empty lines there?
>
> You can look into checkstyle documentation for it.
> For now, I don't know about such checks.
>
>
> В Пн, 03/06/2019 в 16:11 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет:
> > Hi Nikolay,
> >
> > Great, another one nice step to clean code.
> >
> > I scrolled down the commit [1] and have couple of observations:
> > 1. According to our code style agreements each class member should be
> > separated by 1 empty line. As I see there were many places where it
> > was not followed for class fields. E.g. empty lines were added for a
> > code snippet below. For me fields without extra empty lines between
> > them look fine. Of course, it is a question of our agreements. So, we
> > can either permit no empty lines for fields or enforce empty line for
> > each class member.
> > private static class FlaggedCacheOperationCallable implements
> > Callable<GridRestResponse>, Serializable {
> > /** */
> > private static final long serialVersionUID = 0L;
> > /** */
> > private final String cacheName;
> > /** */
> > private final Set<GridClientCacheFlag> cacheFlags;
> >
> > 2. Also I noticed an empty line between a method signature and a first
> > statement in the method in some places, e.g. [2]. Can/should we
> > enforce no empty lines there?
> >
> > And one aside observation (in the same file), it has class fields
> > without a javadoc [3]. Do not our code check jobs enforce javadoc for
> > fields?
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/d63f4d3569dcb387394d367a7f00aaf35f1b288e
> > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/internal/util/io/GridReversedLinesFileReader.java#L154
> > [3] https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/internal/util/io/GridReversedLinesFileReader.java#L35
> >
> > вс, 2 июн. 2019 г. в 22:00, Nikolay Izhikov <nizhikov@apache.org>:
> > >
> > > Hello, Igniters.
> > >
> > > 1. I've added "EmptyLineSeparator" inspection, according to our code style
> > > [1]
> > > 2. I've fixed all current code style violations.
> > >
> > > Please, see my commit [2]
> > >
> > > You may want to merge these changes to your private repos.
> > >
> > > [1]
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Coding+Guidelines#CodingGuidelines-Whitespacesandemptylines
> > > [2]
> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/d63f4d3569dcb387394d367a7f00aaf35f1b288e
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > вт, 23 апр. 2019 г. в 10:45, Vyacheslav Daradur <daradurvs@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > > Also, I excluded "IntelliJ IDEA Inspections" from RunAll and marked it
> > > > as "~[Excluded]".
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 12:25 AM Vyacheslav Daradur <daradurvs@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Maxim, I merged your changes to master.
> > > > >
> > > > > Also, I've created a new build plan "Check Code Style" on TC [1] and
> > > > > included in RunAll build.
> > > > > The report of check-style attaches in artifacts once build is finished.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please check that it works as expected once again and announce new
> > > > > requirements in a separate thread to avoid confusion of community.
> > > > >
> > > > > cc Petr, Pavel (JFYI)
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]
> > > >
> > > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_CheckCodeStyle&tab=buildTypeBranches
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 10:18 PM Vyacheslav Daradur <daradurvs@gmail.com>
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Maxim,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I left some comments in Jira, let's resolve them and I'll assist you
> > > > > > with merge and TC configuring.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 5:50 PM Maxim Muzafarov <maxmuzaf@gmail.com>
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Vyacheslav,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thank you for your interest in making Ignite coding style better.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The short answer is - there are no different checkstyle
> > > > > > > configurations. One for the JetBrains Inspections, and one the
> > > > > > > Checkstyle plugin. This is a completely different approach for
> > > > > > > checking the Ignites source code.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Currently, we have two different configurations for the JetBrains
> > > >
> > > > IDEA
> > > > > > > Inspection check:
> > > > > > >  - ignite\.idea\inspectionProfiles\Project_Default.xml - this is
> > > > > > > default on the IDE level and used silently by every developer whos
> > > > > > > checkout Ignite project (it remains)
> > > > > > >  - ignite\idea\ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml - this is the
> > > > > > > configuration of the inspection for the TC suite (it will be deleted)
> > > > > > > It's unobvious to maintain both of them. Previously we've planned to
> > > > > > > fix all the inspection rules one by one and add them one by one to
> > > >
> > > > the
> > > > > > > TC inspection configuration file (something like storing the
> > > > > > > intermediate result), but it didn't happen cause the inspection TC
> > > > > > > suite got broken after migration to 2018 version.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Now it seems to me, that it is better to use the best open source
> > > > > > > practices like checkstyle plugin (380K usages on github repositories)
> > > > > > > rather than proprietary software. So, we will:
> > > > > > >  - keep IDE level inspection configuration (the Project_Default.xml
> > > >
> > > > config);
> > > > > > >  - add a new checkstyle plugin configuration file (checkstyle.xml
> > > > > > > config) which will be used simultaneously for checking code style on
> > > > > > > build procedure and for the IDE-checkstyle plugin;
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 at 21:23, Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > > >
> > > > daradurvs@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Maxim,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I looked through the PR and it looks good to me in general.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The only question how it's planned to maintain check styles in 2
> > > > > > > > different configurations, for IDEA and check style plugin?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 12:30 PM Maxim Muzafarov <
> > > >
> > > > maxmuzaf@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The issue [1] with enabled maven-checkstyle-plugin is ready for
> > > >
> > > > the review.
> > > > > > > > > All changes are prepared according to e-mail [2] the second
> > > >
> > > > option
> > > > > > > > > point (include the plugin in the maven build procedure by
> > > >
> > > > default).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > JIRA: IGNITE-11277 [1]
> > > > > > > > > PR: [3]
> > > > > > > > > Upsource: [4]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > How can take a look?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11277
> > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > >
> > > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Code-inspection-tp27709p41297.html
> > > > > > > > > [3] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/6119
> > > > > > > > > [4] https://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-1018
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 at 19:19, Dmitriy Pavlov <dpavlov@apache.org>
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I see that a new TeamCity is released: Version: 2018.2.3.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Probably it could solve recently introduced problem related to:
> > > > > > > > > > Unexpected error during build messages processing in TeamCity;
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Peter I., could you please check?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Sincerely,
> > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > пт, 15 мар. 2019 г. в 12:04, Павлухин Иван <
> > > >
> > > > vololo100@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I agree to gather some votes according to Maxim's proposal.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Personally, I will not put my vote here. Both options will
> > > >
> > > > work for me
> > > > > > > > > > > today.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > But I would like to say a bit about agility. As I said both
> > > >
> > > > options
> > > > > > > > > > > sounds fine for me today. And I believe that we can switch
> > > >
> > > > from one to
> > > > > > > > > > > another easily in future. Let's do our best to be flexible.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > пт, 15 мар. 2019 г. в 12:04, Павлухин Иван <
> > > >
> > > > vololo100@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Maxim,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > As far as I understand your case, you want to fix all
> > > >
> > > > code styles
> > > > > > > > > > > > issues right before getting the final TC results. Right?
> > > >
> > > > ...
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I mostly worry about accidental failures. For
> > > >
> > > > simple tasks
> > > > > > > > > > > > my workflow looks like:
> > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Create a branch.
> > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Write some code lines and tests.
> > > > > > > > > > > > 3. Run the most closely related tests from IDEA.
> > > > > > > > > > > > 4. Push changes to the branch.
> > > > > > > > > > > > 5. Launch TC.
> > > > > > > > > > > > 6. Take a cup of coffee ;-)
> > > > > > > > > > > > 7. Check TC results after a couple of hours.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > And in such workflow I can accidentally leave styling
> > > >
> > > > error (IDEA does
> > > > > > > > > > > > not fail compilation). And I will receive not very
> > > >
> > > > valuable report
> > > > > > > > > > > > from TC. And will have to wait for another couple of hours.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, usually I do not execute "mvn clean install" locally
> > > >
> > > > before
> > > > > > > > > > > > triggering TC. And I think that generally we should not do
> > > >
> > > > it because
> > > > > > > > > > > > TC does it.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > If not everybody uses a bot visas it sounds bad for me.
> > > >
> > > > For patches
> > > > > > > > > > > > touching the code it should be mandatory. Also, as you
> > > >
> > > > might know
> > > > > > > > > > > > there are different kind of visas and for some trivial
> > > >
> > > > patches we can
> > > > > > > > > > > > request Checkstyle visa. Committers should check
> > > >
> > > > formalities.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > пт, 15 мар. 2019 г. в 10:29, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > >
> > > > nizhikov@apache.org>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 to enable code style checks in compile time.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > We can add option to disable maven codestyle profile
> > > >
> > > > with some
> > > > > > > > > > > environment variable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyone who want violate common project rules in their
> > > >
> > > > local branch can
> > > > > > > > > > > set this variable and write some nasty code before push :)
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > пт, 15 марта 2019 г., 9:40 Maxim Muzafarov <
> > > >
> > > > maxmuzaf@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. I can write code and execute tests successfully
> > > >
> > > > even if there are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > some style problems. I can imagine that a style error
> > > >
> > > > can arise
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > occasionally. And instead of getting test results after
> > > >
> > > > several hours
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will get a build failure without any tests run. I
> > > >
> > > > will simply lose
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > my time. But if the tests are allowed to proceed I will
> > > >
> > > > get a red flag
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > from code style check, fix those issues and rerun style
> > > >
> > > > check.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > As far as I understand your case, you want to fix all
> > > >
> > > > code styles
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > issues right before getting the final TC results.
> > > >
> > > > Right? It's doable
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > you can disable checkstyle in your local branch and
> > > >
> > > > revet it back when
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > you've done with all your changes to get the final
> > > >
> > > > visa. But the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > common case here is building the project locally and
> > > >
> > > > checking all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > requirements for PR right before pushing it to the
> > > >
> > > > GitHub repo. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > always do so. The "Checklist before push" [1] have such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > recommendations. Build the project before push will
> > > >
> > > > eliminate your use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > case.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > To summarize the options we have with code checking
> > > >
> > > > behaviour:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1)  (code style will be broken more often) Run
> > > >
> > > > checkstyle in the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > separate TC suite and include it to the Bot visa.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - not all of us run TC for their branches especially
> > > >
> > > > for simple fixes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (it's the most common case when a new check style
> > > >
> > > > errors occur)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - not all of us use TC.Bot visa to verify their branches
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - if this checkstyle suite starts to fail it will be
> > > >
> > > > ignored for some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > time (not blocks the development process)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - a lot of suites for code checking (license,
> > > >
> > > > checkstyle, something
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > else in future)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > + a bit comfortable way of TC tests execution for
> > > >
> > > > local\prototyped PRs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (it's a matter of taste)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > + build the project and execute test suites a bit
> > > >
> > > > earlier (checkstyle
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on the separate suite does not affect other suites)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) (code style will be broken less often) Run
> > > >
> > > > checkstyle on project
> > > > > > > > > > > build stage.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - increases a bit the build time procedure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - require additional operations to switch it off for
> > > >
> > > > prototyping
> > > > > > > > > > > branches
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > + do not require TC.Bot visa if someone of the
> > > >
> > > > community doesn't use
> > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > + code style errors will be fixed immediately if the
> > > >
> > > > master branch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > starts to fail
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > + the single place for code checks on maven code
> > > >
> > > > validation stage
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (license check suite can be removed)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please, add another advantages\disadvantages that I've
> > > >
> > > > missed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's vote and pick the most suitable option for the
> > > >
> > > > Apache Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > needs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Personally, I'd like to choose the 2) option.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The JIRA [2] and PR [3] with the checkstyle enabled
> > > >
> > > > plugin is ready
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the review.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > >
> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+to+Contribute#HowtoContribute-Checklistbeforepush
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11277
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [3] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/6119
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 at 11:19, Павлухин Иван <
> > > >
> > > > vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maxim,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From use cases described by you I use only 1 and 2.
> > > >
> > > > And actually I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think that we can concentrate on 1 and forget about
> > > >
> > > > others for now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But please address my worries from previous letter:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ====Quoted text====
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. I can write code and execute tests successfully
> > > >
> > > > even if there are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some style problems. I can imagine that a style error
> > > >
> > > > can arise
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > occasionally. And instead of getting test results
> > > >
> > > > after several
> > > > > > > > > > > hours
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will get a build failure without any tests run. I
> > > >
> > > > will simply lose
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > my time. But if the tests are allowed to proceed I
> > > >
> > > > will get a red
> > > > > > > > > > > flag
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from code style check, fix those issues and rerun
> > > >
> > > > style check.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Style check takes some time. With simple checks it
> > > >
> > > > is almost
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > negligible. But it can grow if more checks are
> > > >
> > > > involved.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ====End of quoted text====
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some clarifications. 1 is about running from IDEA
> > > >
> > > > first. 2 is
> > > > > > > > > > > related
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to opinions that we should involve much more checks,
> > > >
> > > > e.g. using
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > abbreviations.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > чт, 7 мар. 2019 г. в 10:36, Maxim Muzafarov <
> > > >
> > > > maxmuzaf@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's take a look at all the options we have
> > > >
> > > > (ordered by the
> > > > > > > > > > > frequency of use):
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Check ready for merge branches (main case)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Run tests on TC without checkstyle (prototyping
> > > >
> > > > branches)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. Local project build
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4. Quick build without any additional actions on TC
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the other projects (kafka, netty etc.) which
> > > >
> > > > I've checked the
> > > > > > > > > > > checkstyle plugin is used in the <build> section, so the
> > > >
> > > > user has no chance
> > > > > > > > > > > in common cases to disable it via command line (correct me
> > > >
> > > > if I'm wrong).
> > > > > > > > > > > In the PR [1] I've moved checkstyle configuration to the
> > > >
> > > > separate profile.
> > > > > > > > > > > I've set activation checkstyle profile if -DskipTests
> > > >
> > > > specified, so it will
> > > > > > > > > > > run with the basic build configuration. It can also be
> > > >
> > > > disabled locally if
> > > > > > > > > > > we really need it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Back to our use cases:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. For checking the ready to merge branches we will
> > > >
> > > > fail the
> > > > > > > > > > > ~Build Apache Ignite~ suite, so no configured checkstyle
> > > >
> > > > rules will be
> > > > > > > > > > > violated. If we will use the TC.Bot approach someone will
> > > >
> > > > merge the branch
> > > > > > > > > > > without running TC.Bot on it, but no one will merge the
> > > >
> > > > branch with compile
> > > > > > > > > > > errors.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. For the prototyping branches, you can turn off
> > > >
> > > > checkstyle in
> > > > > > > > > > > your local PR by removing activation configuration. It's ok
> > > >
> > > > as these type
> > > > > > > > > > > of branches will never be merged to the master.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. From my point, local builds should be always run
> > > >
> > > > with the
> > > > > > > > > > > checkstyle enabled profile. The common build action as `mvn
> > > >
> > > > clean install
> > > > > > > > > > > -DskipTests` will activate the profile.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4. The checkstyle profile can be disabled
> > > >
> > > > explicitly on TC by
> > > > > > > > > > > specifying -P !checkstyle option. A don't see any use cases
> > > >
> > > > of it, but it's
> > > > > > > > > > > completely doable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please, correct me if I've missed something.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I propose to merge PR [1] as it is, with the
> > > >
> > > > configured set of
> > > > > > > > > > > rules.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/6119
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 at 19:02 Павлухин Иван <
> > > >
> > > > vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maxim,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like an idea of being IDE agnostic. I am ok with
> > > >
> > > > currently
> > > > > > > > > > > enabled
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > checks, they are a must-have in my opinion (even
> > > >
> > > > for prototypes).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But I am still do not like an idea of preventing
> > > >
> > > > tests execution
> > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > style check finds a problem. I checked out PR,
> > > >
> > > > installed a
> > > > > > > > > > > plugin and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tried it out. Here are my concerns:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. I can write code and execute tests successfully
> > > >
> > > > even if there
> > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some style problems. I can imagine that a style
> > > >
> > > > error can arise
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > occasionally. And instead of getting test results
> > > >
> > > > after several
> > > > > > > > > > > hours
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will get a build failure without any tests run.
> > > >
> > > > I will simply
> > > > > > > > > > > lose
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > my time. But if the tests are allowed to proceed I
> > > >
> > > > will get a
> > > > > > > > > > > red flag
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from code style check, fix those issues and rerun
> > > >
> > > > style check.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Style check takes some time. With simple checks
> > > >
> > > > it is almost
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > negligible. But it can grow if more checks are
> > > >
> > > > involved.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the bright side I found nice integration of
> > > >
> > > > Checkstyle plugin
> > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IDEA commit dialog. There is a checkbox "Scan with
> > > >
> > > > Checkstyle"
> > > > > > > > > > > which I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think is quite useful.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > пн, 4 мар. 2019 г. в 15:00, Maxim Muzafarov <
> > > >
> > > > maxmuzaf@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like that Jetbrains inspections are integrated
> > > >
> > > > with IDE and
> > > > > > > > > > > TC out
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the box, but currently, they are working not
> > > >
> > > > well enough on
> > > > > > > > > > > TC.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, they are not checking our source code
> > > >
> > > > at all.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's try a bit another approach and try to be
> > > >
> > > > IDE-agnostic
> > > > > > > > > > > with code
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > style checking. I've checked popular java
> > > >
> > > > projects: hadoop,
> > > > > > > > > > > kafka,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > spark, hive, netty. All of them are using
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > maven-checkstyle-plugin in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > their <build> section by default, so why don't
> > > >
> > > > we? It sounds
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reasonable for me at least to try so.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you take a look at my changes below?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PR [2] has been prepared. All the details I've
> > > >
> > > > mentioned in my
> > > > > > > > > > > comment
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in JIRA [4].
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can anyone take a look at my changes?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JIRA: [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PR: [2]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Upsource: [3]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Questions to discuss:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) There is no analogue for inspections
> > > >
> > > > RedundantSuppression
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SizeReplaceableByIsEmpty (all code style checks
> > > >
> > > > [5]). Propose
> > > > > > > > > > > to merge
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without them.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Checkstyle plugin has it's own maven profile
> > > >
> > > > and enabled by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > default. It can be turned off for prototype
> > > >
> > > > branches.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) I've removed the inspections configuration
> > > >
> > > > for the TC suite
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > propose to disable it as not working.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > >
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11277
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/6119
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > https://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-1018
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [4]
> > > >
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11277?focusedCommentId=16771200&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-16771200
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [5]
> > > >
> > > > http://checkstyle.sourceforge.net/checks.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 16:21, Павлухин Иван <
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nikolay,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All community members are forced to follow
> > > >
> > > > code style.
> > > > > > > > > > > It's harder to achieve it with dedicated suite.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why it is easier to follow code style with use
> > > >
> > > > of maven
> > > > > > > > > > > checkstyle
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > plugin? Is it integrated into IDEA out of box?
> > > >
> > > > As I got it
> > > > > > > > > > > additional
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IDEA plugin is needed as well. Who will
> > > >
> > > > enforce everybody to
> > > > > > > > > > > install
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, as I see a common good practice today is
> > > >
> > > > using TC Bot
> > > > > > > > > > > visa. Visa
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > includes result from running inspections job.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > чт, 14 февр. 2019 г. в 16:08, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > nizhikov@apache.org>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please outline the benefits you
> > > >
> > > > see of failing
> > > > > > > > > > > compilation and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > skipping tests execution if inspections
> > > >
> > > > detect a problem?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All community members are forced to follow
> > > >
> > > > code style.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's harder to achieve it with dedicated
> > > >
> > > > suite.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > чт, 14 февр. 2019 г. в 15:21, Павлухин Иван <
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 <
> > > > > > > > > > > nizhikov@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 <
> > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@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 <
> > > > > > > > > > > maxmuzaf@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 <
> > > > > > > > > > > nizhikov@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.weider@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 <
> > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@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 <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nizhikov@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.weider@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
> > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nizhikov@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.weider@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 <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nizhikov@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 <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@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 <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > oignatenko@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 &lt;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mr.weider@
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; 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 &lt;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mr.weider@
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Investigating
> > > >
> > > > problem, stand by.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 18 Dec 2018, at
> > > >
> > > > 19:41, Dmitriy
> > > > > > > > > > > Pavlov &lt;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > &gt; 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
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maxim Muzafarov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
> > > >
> >
> >
> >



-- 
Best regards,
Ivan Pavlukhin


Mime
View raw message