ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Anton Vinogradov ...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Coding guidelines. Useless JavaDoc comments.
Date Thu, 15 Aug 2019 07:05:38 GMT
My +1 to optional Javadoc at private methods, fields, and classes.
The reviewer should guaranty that everything is clear.
But, in case everything is clear without redundant Javadoc there is no need
to have it.

So, my proposal is to allow /** */ for non-public fields and methods (to
keep readability between documented and obvious fields/methods).
Also, I'd like to propose to have only non-obvious params explained at
non-public method's Javadoc.

On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 9:13 AM Павлухин Иван <vololo100@gmail.com> wrote:

> Maxim,
>
> > I'd prefer to leave the current situation with Javadoc as it is and just
> to ask to apply the patch [1][2]. Can you? :-)
>
> You caught me. I left my comments for that PR
>
> .Pavel and all,
>
> > I think that API of our core internal things like PageMemory, WAL, all
> existing managers and processors should be as well documented as possible.
>
> No doubts here.
>
> > Documentation should be a result of a proper code review.
>
> I suppose it does not mean that documentation should be written after
> a review. I suppose it means that we should not have a poor
> documentation *after* a review. Overall, Pavel's last message conforms
> well with my opinion on the subject.
>
> чт, 8 авг. 2019 г. в 18:34, Pavel Kovalenko <jokserfn@gmail.com>:
> >
> > I can agree that some part of javadocs we have is useless. It relates to
> > DTOs, getters/setters without side-effects, short self-descriptive
> methods.
> > In an ideal world, proper modularization of architecture, leading to
> > KISS/SOLID/DRY/etc. principles, writing self-documented code should
> result
> > in javadocs disappearing, as they become not needed.
> > We live in a not ideal world. We don't have good architecture and can't
> > always lead to mentioned principles, because we need sometimes sacrifice
> > readability for optimization, fixing a critical bug, etc.
> > I think that API of our core internal things like PageMemory, WAL, all
> > existing managers and processors should be as well documented as
> possible.
> > If a developer uses some module / manager / processor without looking
> > inside, reading the only description of public methods, it's a good sign
> > that this part of the functionality is well documented.
> > Internal implementation should be also clear for a developer who likes to
> > make a change inside it. Every optimization, avoiding race-condition, not
> > obvious thing and especially crutch must be documented as detailed as
> > possible.
> > Documentation should be a result of a proper code review. If a reviewer
> has
> > questions regarding any code line it should be either refactored to make
> > this thing obvious or well documented.
> > If a class or method is self-documented and obvious there is no need to
> > document it anyway.
> > if each person takes the code review as seriously as possible,
> > documentation and code will be better automatically.
> > Mandatory documentation in places where it's really not needed looks
> like a
> > burden. A developer will avoid write it properly everywhere or do it
> "just
> > for check" and this will influence on documentation with the negative
> side.
> > Flexible approach with mandatory / optional javadocs with good code
> review
> > will result in readability improvement overall.
> >
> >
> > чт, 8 авг. 2019 г. в 17:52, Maxim Muzafarov <maxmuzaf@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > Ivan,
> > >
> > > It is not a problem to check Javadocs at the moment code syle checking
> > > performed, but do we really need this? And the human-factor you
> > > mentioned above is also related to the `self-descriptive` names. I
> > > assume, that someone now is desiring to use single-letter variables
> > > and single-letter class names to save space an time. We will always
> > > have such an opinion race.
> > >
> > > I'd prefer to leave the current situation with Javadoc as it is and
> > > just to ask to apply the patch [1][2]. Can you? :-)
> > >
> > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12051
> > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/6760
> > >
> > > On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 at 17:24, Павлухин Иван <vololo100@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Maxim,
> > > >
> > > > My main concern here is a human factor. Humans are usually not so
> good
> > > > in keeping documentation always in sync with a code. Examples from an
> > > > actual PR:
> > > > /**
> > > > * @param nodeId The remote node id.
> > > > * @param channel The channel to notify listeners with.
> > > > */
> > > > private void onChannelOpened0(UUID nodeId, GridIoMessage initMsg,
> > > > Channel channel)
> > > >
> > > > First, there is a mismatch between number of parameters in javadoc
> and
> > > > code. Second, e.g. nodeId name can be made self-descriptive rmtNodeId
> > > > name.
> > > >
> > > > Mandatory javadocs do not imply good javadocs. Good javadocs do not
> > > > imply javadocs for every method and field. For me, mandatory and good
> > > > javadocs are like communism. Sounds quite nice in theory, but not
> > > > feasible in practice.
> > > >
> > > > чт, 8 авг. 2019 г. в 16:55, Denis Garus <garus.d.g@gmail.com>:
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you, Maxim.
> > > > >
> > > > > >>On what we are trying to save by making Javadoc optional?
> > > > >
> > > > > Space and time.
> > > > >
> > > > > I doubt that we need a verbal description of what private method
> make.
> > > > > Why we need it if we just can read the code?
> > > > >
> > > > > Bright examples:
> > > > >
> > > > > /**
> > > > > * @param helper Helper to attach to kernal context.
> > > > > */
> > > > > private void addHelper(Object helper) {
> > > > >     ctx.addHelper(helper);
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > /**
> > > > > * Gets "on" or "off" string for given boolean value.
> > > > > *
> > > > > * @param b Boolean value to convert.
> > > > > * @return Result string.
> > > > > */
> > > > > private String onOff(boolean b) {
> > > > >     return b ? "on" : "off";
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > You have to support both code of method and their JavaDoc
> description,
> > > but
> > > > > it doesn't get any sake.
> > > > >
> > > > > >>Let's just help them to read the source code.
> > > > >
> > > > > But at the same time, public method IgniteKernal#start doesn't
> have any
> > > > > description except enumeration of attributes with apparent notes.
> > > > > Maybe to give it a verbal description needs one or two pages of the
> > > screen.
> > > > > Does it make sense?
> > > > >
> > > > > чт, 8 авг. 2019 г. в 15:41, Maxim Muzafarov <maxmuzaf@gmail.com>:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm -1 with making Javadoc optional (except tests).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Here is my patch [1] with PR [2] which fixes all the Javadoc
> comments
> > > > > > for the IgniteKernal class mentioned above. Please, take a look.
> The
> > > > > > review is very appreciated.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On what we are trying to save by making Javadoc optional? In
my
> > > humble
> > > > > > opinion - Javadoc comments are mostly concern users who debug
the
> > > > > > Ignite when they have faced with some unhandled exception or
> related
> > > > > > to the community members with an average involvement (produces
a
> few
> > > > > > small patches during the year) but not to the experienced one.
> Let's
> > > > > > just help them to read the source code.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12051
> > > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/6760
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 13:54, Andrey Kuznetsov <stkuzma@gmail.com
> >
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > +1 for making javadoc comments optional.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - Empty and tautological comments are kind of garbage that
> reduce
> > > > > > > readability.
> > > > > > > - It's better to leave the entity undocumented, than write
> > > > > > > unexpressive/misleading comment.
> > > > > > > - Even classes may not require javadocs, e.g. simple DTOs.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ср, 7 авг. 2019 г., 13:39 Denis Garus <garus.d.g@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thx for feedback!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> we have to write proper javadoc for all production
> classes,
> > > > > > including
> > > > > > > > internal.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Nikolay, I cannot agree with it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What should be the best comment for the next fields?
> > > > > > > > /** */
> > > > > > > > private static final long serialVersionUID = 0L;
> > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > /** */
> > > > > > > > @LoggerResource
> > > > > > > > private IgniteLogger log;
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > There are more than 8000 lines of /** */ only at the
> ignite-core
> > > > > > module (do
> > > > > > > > not include tests).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Any comments will be redundant and just noise. Obvious
> comment
> > > learns
> > > > > > > > readers skip all comments.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> identical distance/padding/margin between
fields in a
> class -
> > > is
> > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > cool
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Vyacheslav, but we have a blank line between fields.
Why is
> one
> > > blank
> > > > > > line
> > > > > > > > not enough?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ср, 7 авг. 2019 г. в 12:58, Павлухин
Иван <
> vololo100@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Denis, thank you for starting this discussion!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > My opinion here is that having a good javadoc
for every
> class
> > > and
> > > > > > > > > method is not feasible in the real world. I am
quite
> curious
> > > to see a
> > > > > > > > > non-trivial project which follows it. Also, all
comments
> and
> > > javadocs
> > > > > > > > > are prone to become misleading when code changes
(human
> > > factor). In
> > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > experience good method and variable names and
clear code
> > > organization
> > > > > > > > > often are more helpful than javadocs.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ср, 7 авг. 2019 г. в 12:49, Vyacheslav
Daradur <
> > > daradurvs@gmail.com
> > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I agree that useless comments look weird
in the codebase.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > But, identical distance/padding/margin between
fields in
> a
> > > class -
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > really cool, and helps read the class very
fast.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 12:26 PM Nikolay
Izhikov <
> > > > > > nizhikov@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Denis.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for starting this discussion.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I think we have to write proper javadoc
for all
> production
> > > > > > classes,
> > > > > > > > > including internal.
> > > > > > > > > > > We should fix useless javadoc you provide.
> > > > > > > > > > > We should not accept patches without
good javadocs.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > As for the tests, seems, we can make
javadoc optional.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > В Ср, 07/08/2019 в 11:41 +0300,
Denis Garus пишет:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters!
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I think it's time to change coding
guidelines in
> part of
> > > > > > JavaDoc
> > > > > > > > > comments
> > > > > > > > > > > > [1]:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Every method, field
or initializer public,
> private or
> > > > > > protected
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > top-level,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > inner or anonymous type
should have at least
> minimal
> > > > > > Javadoc
> > > > > > > > > comments
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > including
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > description and description
of parameters using
> > > @param,
> > > > > > @return
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > @throws Javadoc tags,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > where applicable.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Let's look at JavaDoc comments
in the IgniteKernal
> class:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Why?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > /** */ - 15 matches.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > What can you get new from these
comments?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > /** Periodic starvation check
interval. */
> > > > > > > > > > > > private static final long
> PERIODIC_STARVATION_CHECK_FREQ
> > > =
> > > > > > 1000 *
> > > > > > > > 30;
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > /** Long jvm pause detector. */
> > > > > > > > > > > > private LongJVMPauseDetector longJVMPauseDetector;
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > /** Scheduler. */
> > > > > > > > > > > >     private IgniteScheduler scheduler;
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > /** Stop guard. */
> > > > > > > > > > > >     private final AtomicBoolean
stopGuard = new
> > > > > > AtomicBoolean();
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > /**
> > > > > > > > > > > >      * @param cfg Configuration
to use.
> > > > > > > > > > > >      * @param utilityCachePool
Utility cache pool.
> > > > > > > > > > > >      * @param execSvc Executor
service.
> > > > > > > > > > > >      * @param sysExecSvc System
executor service.
> > > > > > > > > > > >      * @param stripedExecSvc Striped
executor.
> > > > > > > > > > > >      * @param p2pExecSvc P2P executor
service.
> > > > > > > > > > > >      * @param mgmtExecSvc Management
executor
> service.
> > > > > > > > > > > >      * @param igfsExecSvc IGFS
executor service.
> > > > > > > > > > > >      * @param dataStreamExecSvc
data stream executor
> > > service.
> > > > > > > > > > > >      * @param restExecSvc Reset
executor service.
> > > > > > > > > > > >      * @param affExecSvc Affinity
executor service.
> > > > > > > > > > > >      * @param idxExecSvc Indexing
executor service.
> > > > > > > > > > > >      * @param callbackExecSvc
Callback executor
> service.
> > > > > > > > > > > >      * @param qryExecSvc Query
executor service.
> > > > > > > > > > > >      * @param schemaExecSvc Schema
executor service.
> > > > > > > > > > > >      * @param customExecSvcs Custom
named executors.
> > > > > > > > > > > >      * @param errHnd Error handler
to use for
> > > notification
> > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > startup
> > > > > > > > > > > > problems.
> > > > > > > > > > > >      * @param workerRegistry Worker
registry.
> > > > > > > > > > > >      * @param hnd Default uncaught
exception handler
> > > used by
> > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > pools.
> > > > > > > > > > > >      * @throws IgniteCheckedException
Thrown in case
> of
> > > any
> > > > > > errors.
> > > > > > > > > > > >      */
> > > > > > > > > > > >     public void start(
> > > > > > > > > > > >         final IgniteConfiguration
cfg,
> > > > > > > > > > > >         ExecutorService utilityCachePool,
> > > > > > > > > > > >         final ExecutorService
execSvc,
> > > > > > > > > > > >         final ExecutorService
svcExecSvc,
> > > > > > > > > > > >         final ExecutorService
sysExecSvc,
> > > > > > > > > > > >         final StripedExecutor
stripedExecSvc,
> > > > > > > > > > > >         ExecutorService p2pExecSvc,
> > > > > > > > > > > >         ExecutorService mgmtExecSvc,
> > > > > > > > > > > >         ExecutorService igfsExecSvc,
> > > > > > > > > > > >         StripedExecutor dataStreamExecSvc,
> > > > > > > > > > > >         ExecutorService restExecSvc,
> > > > > > > > > > > >         ExecutorService affExecSvc,
> > > > > > > > > > > >         @Nullable ExecutorService
idxExecSvc,
> > > > > > > > > > > >         IgniteStripedThreadPoolExecutor
> callbackExecSvc,
> > > > > > > > > > > >         ExecutorService qryExecSvc,
> > > > > > > > > > > >         ExecutorService schemaExecSvc,
> > > > > > > > > > > >         @Nullable final Map<String,
? extends
> > > ExecutorService>
> > > > > > > > > > > > customExecSvcs,
> > > > > > > > > > > >         GridAbsClosure errHnd,
> > > > > > > > > > > >         WorkersRegistry workerRegistry,
> > > > > > > > > > > >         Thread.UncaughtExceptionHandler
hnd,
> > > > > > > > > > > >         TimeBag startTimer
> > > > > > > > > > > >     )
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > These comments look ugly and useless,
and that is the
> > > main
> > > > > > class of
> > > > > > > > > core.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Why do they need us?
> > > > > > > > > > > > Let us change the coding guidelines
in part of
> JavaDoc
> > > > > > comments:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Every method public API should
have at least minimal
> > > Javadoc
> > > > > > > > > comments,
> > > > > > > > > > > > including description and description
of parameters
> using
> > > > > > @param,
> > > > > > > > > @return,
> > > > > > > > > > > > and @throws Javadoc tags,
> > > > > > > > > > > > where applicable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > For internal API, JavaDoc comments
should be
> optional.
> > > It's up
> > > > > > to a
> > > > > > > > > > > > contributor or reviewer.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > What are you think?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 1.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Coding+Guidelines#CodingGuidelines-JavadocComments
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > >
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Ivan Pavlukhin
>

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