Code inspection

[Dmitriy Pavlov]

Inspection suites should be failed manually by some fail condition.

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

ср, 28 мар. 2018 г. в 18:54, Anton Vinogradov <[hidden email]>:

> Peter,
>
> Why 44 errors are green?
>
>
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1145974&tab=buildResultsDiv&buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsAop
>
> 2018-03-28 16:27 GMT+03:00 Petr Ivanov <[hidden email]>:
>
> > After several problems, example run on Aleksey’s configuration is
> > complete: https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1164652 <
> > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1164652>
> >
> >
> > > On 28 Mar 2018, at 10:28, Petr Ivanov <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Started https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1164002 <
> > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewQueued.html?itemId=1163998> with
> > Aleksey’s inspections profile.
> > > Core (long) and AOP (short) modules will be tested as example.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> On 27 Mar 2018, at 19:38, Dmitry Pavlov <[hidden email]
> <mailto:
> > [hidden email]>> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hi Petr,
> > >>
> > >> Could you please take inspections and run it on AI code base in
> > >> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=
> > IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%
> > 3E&tab=buildTypeStatusDiv <https://ci.ignite.apache.org/
> > viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore&branch_
> > IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E&tab=buildTypeStatusDiv>
> > >> ?
> > >>
> > >> Sincerely,
> > >> Dmitriy Pavlov
> > >>
> > >> вт, 27 мар. 2018 г. в 19:27, Dmitry Pavlov <[hidden email]>:
> > >>
> > >>> Alexey, thank you for bring this topic to top.
> > >>>
> > >>> What do you think about committing this inspections into Ignite code
> > base?
> > >>>
> > >>> What can be our next steps after demonstrating CI check is possible
> > >>> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=
> > IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%
> > 3E&tab=buildTypeStatusDiv
> > >>> ?
> > >>>
> > >>> Sincerely,
> > >>> Dmitriy Pavlov
> > >>>
> > >>> вт, 27 мар. 2018 г. в 15:28, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > [hidden email]
> > >>>> :
> > >>>
> > >>>> Bumping up.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Attached is my local inspections profile exported from Idea. Let's
> run
> > >>>> the first iteration and check if it differs significantly from other
> > >>>> community members.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> --AG
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 2018-03-19 16:39 GMT+03:00 Petr Ivanov <[hidden email]>:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Filed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7985 <
> > >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7985> [1].
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> On 18 Mar 2018, at 00:56, Dmitry Pavlov <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Hello Petr,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Many members of the community would appreciate such additional
> code
> > >>>>> control, and it's a pity that no one made this happen. Agree?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Could you please pick up this activity?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> It might be an idea to create 'IDEA Inspections' step to be run in
> > >>>>> parallel with 'Build Apache Ignite'. WDYT? Would it work?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Sincerely,
> > >>>>>> Dmitriy Pavlov
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> https://confluence.jetbrains.com/display/TCD10/Inspections <
> > >>>>> https://confluence.jetbrains.com/display/TCD10/Inspections>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> пн, 12 мар. 2018 г. в 14:37, Dmitry Pavlov <[hidden email]
> > >>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>> Hi Dmitriy,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> would you pick up this activity?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Sincerely,
> > >>>>>> Dmitriy Pavlov
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 14:09, Dmitry Pavlov <[hidden email]
> > >>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>> What I can suggest now it is to take XML file with existing as is
> > from
> > >>>>> previous topic (I remember someone in community already prepared
> > settings)
> > >>>>> and set up TeamCity Run configuration as part of Run All Basic
> Tests
> > (per
> > >>>>> commit basis).
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> If we don’t have XML, I suggest to enable build-in Idea
> inspections
> > >>>>> 'as is' on TeamCity and iteratively improve it according to found
> > issues.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Dmitriy G., would you prepare PR and proof-of-concept TC run
> > >>>>> configuration?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> As discussion became really active, I think that means community
> is
> > >>>>> interested in static code checks.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 14:08, Dmitry Pavlov <[hidden email]
> > >>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>> I was thinking about some quick check, which will automatically
> > >>>>> require minimum runs. Now, any committer can push changes to the
> > master,
> > >>>>> which break not only the inspection and style, but even the
> > compilation. If
> > >>>>> this control would be automatic, it can allow us make codebase
> > better quite
> > >>>>> fast. But I am afraid it is not realistic.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 13:42, Petr Ivanov <[hidden email]
> > <mailto:
> > >>>>> [hidden email]>>:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>> Sonar is powerful, yes, but it’s power in thoroughness. I.e. it
> does
> > >>>>> its job well in cases of leisurely post-build analysis.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I’d suggest we use it (if we will use it) in the following
> > scenarios:
> > >>>>>> — some basic checks Sonar profile for Blocker bugs (it is fast) —
> > >>>>> something that cannot be passed to master;
> > >>>>>> — nightly or even weekly run with Full Sonar profile (600+ checks
> > >>>>> from Firebug, Codestyle, Coverage, etc.) for regression and overall
> > code
> > >>>>> quality improvement goals.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Did not quite get you about push-to-master prohibition. Can you
> > >>>>> explain scenario in more details?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On 6 Mar 2018, at 13:27, Dmitry Pavlov <[hidden email]
> > >>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Petr, I've heard Sonar is powerful tool.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Would it help us to prohibit commits to master w/o test run / too
> > >>>>> much
> > >>>>>>> failed tests / too much inspection errors appeared?
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 13:22, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > >>>>> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Dmitriy,
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> I like this idea a lot. For example, the inspection profile
> should
> > >>>>> have
> > >>>>>>>> inspection 'Anonymous class can be converted to lambda' disabled
> > >>>>> because
> > >>>>>>>> quite a lot of such classes can be sent over the network
> (although
> > >>>>> even
> > >>>>>>>> anonymous classes are discourage for such purposes).
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> I believe we can start with sharing somehow one of the profiles
> > and
> > >>>>> then
> > >>>>>>>> iteratively improving it until the community is satisfied with
> the
> > >>>>> result.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Thoughts?
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>> 2018-03-06 12:06 GMT+03:00 Petr Ivanov <[hidden email]
> > <mailto:
> > >>>>> [hidden email]>>:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> We can use Sonar as instrument for code analysis and test
> > coverage
> > >>>>>>>>> inspections.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> On 6 Mar 2018, at 11:28, Dmitriy Govorukhin <
> > >>>>>>>>> [hidden email] <mailto:dmitriy.govorukhin@
> > gmail.com>>
> > >>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy,
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> As I understood, preview topic was of static code analysis in
> > >>>>> general.
> > >>>>>>>>>> In this topic, I want to discuss only idea inspection rule.
> > >>>>>>>>>> In future, of course, we can expаnd this rule to the TeamCity
> > >>>>> build.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:16 AM, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > >>>>> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Igniters.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> +1 to automatic code style tools.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Let's make it already!
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Do we have a ticket for it?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Related discussion -
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble <
> > >>>>> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble/>.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> com/Static-code-analysis-for-Java-td22195.html
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> В Вт, 06/03/2018 в 08:15 +0000, Dmitry Pavlov пишет:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Dmitriy,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should resurrect thread about addition of code
> > >>>>>>>> inspections,
> > >>>>>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> later we can enable automatic control step to TeamCity.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Could you help me to find it?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 11:11, Dmitriy Govorukhin <
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] <mailto:dmitriy.govorukhin@
> > gmail.com
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi folks,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Do we have 'inspection' [1] scheme for ignite?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I see a lot of warnings in my code, and I guess it is
> because
> > >>>>>>>> everyone
> > >>>>>>>>>>> uses
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> different schemes.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's start the discussion.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] IDEA inspection
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/code-inspection.html <
> > >>>>> https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/code-inspection.html>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >
> >
> >
>

[vveider]

Anton, Dmitry is right.

We have to manually add condition when to consider build faulty based on
how many failed inspection are there.

For now I see this initiative as follows:
- find more or less correct set of inspections (there are lots of typos and
other irrelevant to code execution inspections) looking on the results of
core module build, as it has ~85% of target code;
- add all modules to composite project and setup schedule at least once a
week.


On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 at 19:09, Dmitry Pavlov <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Inspection suites should be failed manually by some fail condition.
>
> This question will become actual in future. How to fail such suite on TC?
>
> ср, 28 мар. 2018 г. в 18:54, Anton Vinogradov <[hidden email]>:
>
> > Peter,
> >
> > Why 44 errors are green?
> >
> >
> >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1145974&tab=buildResultsDiv&buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsAop
> >
> > 2018-03-28 16:27 GMT+03:00 Petr Ivanov <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > > After several problems, example run on Aleksey’s configuration is
> > > complete: https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1164652 <
> > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1164652>
> > >
> > >
> > > > On 28 Mar 2018, at 10:28, Petr Ivanov <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Started https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1164002 <
> > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewQueued.html?itemId=1163998> with
> > > Aleksey’s inspections profile.
> > > > Core (long) and AOP (short) modules will be tested as example.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> On 27 Mar 2018, at 19:38, Dmitry Pavlov <[hidden email]
> > <mailto:
> > > [hidden email]>> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Hi Petr,
> > > >>
> > > >> Could you please take inspections and run it on AI code base in
> > > >> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=
> > >
> IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%
> > > 3E&tab=buildTypeStatusDiv <https://ci.ignite.apache.org/
> > > viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore&branch_
> > > IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E&tab=buildTypeStatusDiv>
> > > >> ?
> > > >>
> > > >> Sincerely,
> > > >> Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > >>
> > > >> вт, 27 мар. 2018 г. в 19:27, Dmitry Pavlov <[hidden email]>:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Alexey, thank you for bring this topic to top.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> What do you think about committing this inspections into Ignite
> code
> > > base?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> What can be our next steps after demonstrating CI check is possible
> > > >>> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=
> > >
> IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%
> > > 3E&tab=buildTypeStatusDiv
> > > >>> ?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Sincerely,
> > > >>> Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > >>>
> > > >>> вт, 27 мар. 2018 г. в 15:28, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > >>>> :
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> Bumping up.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Attached is my local inspections profile exported from Idea. Let's
> > run
> > > >>>> the first iteration and check if it differs significantly from
> other
> > > >>>> community members.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> --AG
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> 2018-03-19 16:39 GMT+03:00 Petr Ivanov <[hidden email]>:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> Filed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7985 <
> > > >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7985> [1].
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> On 18 Mar 2018, at 00:56, Dmitry Pavlov <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Hello Petr,
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Many members of the community would appreciate such additional
> > code
> > > >>>>> control, and it's a pity that no one made this happen. Agree?
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Could you please pick up this activity?
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> It might be an idea to create 'IDEA Inspections' step to be run
> in
> > > >>>>> parallel with 'Build Apache Ignite'. WDYT? Would it work?
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Sincerely,
> > > >>>>>> Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> https://confluence.jetbrains.com/display/TCD10/Inspections <
> > > >>>>> https://confluence.jetbrains.com/display/TCD10/Inspections>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> пн, 12 мар. 2018 г. в 14:37, Dmitry Pavlov <
> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>> Hi Dmitriy,
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> would you pick up this activity?
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Sincerely,
> > > >>>>>> Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 14:09, Dmitry Pavlov <[hidden email]
> > > >>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>> What I can suggest now it is to take XML file with existing as
> is
> > > from
> > > >>>>> previous topic (I remember someone in community already prepared
> > > settings)
> > > >>>>> and set up TeamCity Run configuration as part of Run All Basic
> > Tests
> > > (per
> > > >>>>> commit basis).
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> If we don’t have XML, I suggest to enable build-in Idea
> > inspections
> > > >>>>> 'as is' on TeamCity and iteratively improve it according to found
> > > issues.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Dmitriy G., would you prepare PR and proof-of-concept TC run
> > > >>>>> configuration?
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> As discussion became really active, I think that means community
> > is
> > > >>>>> interested in static code checks.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 14:08, Dmitry Pavlov <[hidden email]
> > > >>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>> I was thinking about some quick check, which will automatically
> > > >>>>> require minimum runs. Now, any committer can push changes to the
> > > master,
> > > >>>>> which break not only the inspection and style, but even the
> > > compilation. If
> > > >>>>> this control would be automatic, it can allow us make codebase
> > > better quite
> > > >>>>> fast. But I am afraid it is not realistic.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 13:42, Petr Ivanov <[hidden email]
> > > <mailto:
> > > >>>>> [hidden email]>>:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>> Sonar is powerful, yes, but it’s power in thoroughness. I.e. it
> > does
> > > >>>>> its job well in cases of leisurely post-build analysis.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> I’d suggest we use it (if we will use it) in the following
> > > scenarios:
> > > >>>>>> — some basic checks Sonar profile for Blocker bugs (it is fast)
> —
> > > >>>>> something that cannot be passed to master;
> > > >>>>>> — nightly or even weekly run with Full Sonar profile (600+
> checks
> > > >>>>> from Firebug, Codestyle, Coverage, etc.) for regression and
> overall
> > > code
> > > >>>>> quality improvement goals.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Did not quite get you about push-to-master prohibition. Can you
> > > >>>>> explain scenario in more details?
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> On 6 Mar 2018, at 13:27, Dmitry Pavlov <[hidden email]
> > > >>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Petr, I've heard Sonar is powerful tool.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Would it help us to prohibit commits to master w/o test run /
> too
> > > >>>>> much
> > > >>>>>>> failed tests / too much inspection errors appeared?
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 13:22, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > >>>>> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Dmitriy,
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> I like this idea a lot. For example, the inspection profile
> > should
> > > >>>>> have
> > > >>>>>>>> inspection 'Anonymous class can be converted to lambda'
> disabled
> > > >>>>> because
> > > >>>>>>>> quite a lot of such classes can be sent over the network
> > (although
> > > >>>>> even
> > > >>>>>>>> anonymous classes are discourage for such purposes).
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> I believe we can start with sharing somehow one of the
> profiles
> > > and
> > > >>>>> then
> > > >>>>>>>> iteratively improving it until the community is satisfied with
> > the
> > > >>>>> result.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Thoughts?
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> 2018-03-06 12:06 GMT+03:00 Petr Ivanov <[hidden email]
> > > <mailto:
> > > >>>>> [hidden email]>>:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> We can use Sonar as instrument for code analysis and test
> > > coverage
> > > >>>>>>>>> inspections.
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> On 6 Mar 2018, at 11:28, Dmitriy Govorukhin <
> > > >>>>>>>>> [hidden email] <mailto:dmitriy.govorukhin@
> > > gmail.com>>
> > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> As I understood, preview topic was of static code analysis
> in
> > > >>>>> general.
> > > >>>>>>>>>> In this topic, I want to discuss only idea inspection rule.
> > > >>>>>>>>>> In future, of course, we can expаnd this rule to the
> TeamCity
> > > >>>>> build.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:16 AM, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > >>>>> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Igniters.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> +1 to automatic code style tools.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Let's make it already!
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Do we have a ticket for it?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Related discussion -
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble <
> > > >>>>> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble/>.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> com/Static-code-analysis-for-Java-td22195.html
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> В Вт, 06/03/2018 в 08:15 +0000, Dmitry Pavlov пишет:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Dmitriy,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should resurrect thread about addition of code
> > > >>>>>>>> inspections,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> later we can enable automatic control step to TeamCity.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Could you help me to find it?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 11:11, Dmitriy Govorukhin <
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] <mailto:dmitriy.govorukhin@
> > > gmail.com
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi folks,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Do we have 'inspection' [1] scheme for ignite?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I see a lot of warnings in my code, and I guess it is
> > because
> > > >>>>>>>> everyone
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> uses
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> different schemes.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's start the discussion.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] IDEA inspection
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/code-inspection.html
> <
> > > >>>>> https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/code-inspection.html>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

[Alexey Goncharuk]

From what I see, it should be rather easy to get a meaningful number of
inspection failures to get something we can start working with.

Namely, we have:
Overly strong type cast (206) - mechanical work, easy to fix
Assignment replaceable with operator assignment (23) - either mechanical
work, or disable inspection
'expression.equals("literal")' rather than '"literal".equals(expression)'
(49) - mechanical work
'size() == 0' replaceable with 'isEmpty()' (67) - mechanical work
Missorted modifiers (121) - mechanical work
Redundant field initialization (76) - mechanical work or disable inspection
Unnecessary 'this' qualifier (543) - mechanical work or disable inspection
'if' statement could be replaced with conditional expression (244) -
mechanical work or disable inspection
Redundant throws declaration (100) - mechanical work or disable inspection
Redundant suppression (848) - mechanical work
Missing @Override annotation (289) - mechanical work
Property key/value delimiter doesn't match code style settings (2183) -
disable inspection
Unused Property (2180) - disable inspection

For some of the inspections we have to agree whether we enforce a
particular code style (for example, unnecessary 'this' qualifier).
After this is done, the number of failed inspections will drop dramatically
and we can start tracking changes and pay more attention to other
inspection categories.

--AG

2018-03-28 21:19 GMT+03:00 Peter Ivanov <[hidden email]>:

> Anton, Dmitry is right.
>
> We have to manually add condition when to consider build faulty based on
> how many failed inspection are there.
>
> For now I see this initiative as follows:
> - find more or less correct set of inspections (there are lots of typos and
> other irrelevant to code execution inspections) looking on the results of
> core module build, as it has ~85% of target code;
> - add all modules to composite project and setup schedule at least once a
> week.
>
>
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 at 19:09, Dmitry Pavlov <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Inspection suites should be failed manually by some fail condition.
> >
> > This question will become actual in future. How to fail such suite on TC?
> >
> > ср, 28 мар. 2018 г. в 18:54, Anton Vinogradov <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > > Peter,
> > >
> > > Why 44 errors are green?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1145974&
> tab=buildResultsDiv&buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsAop
> > >
> > > 2018-03-28 16:27 GMT+03:00 Petr Ivanov <[hidden email]>:
> > >
> > > > After several problems, example run on Aleksey’s configuration is
> > > > complete: https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1164652
> <
> > > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1164652>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > On 28 Mar 2018, at 10:28, Petr Ivanov <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Started https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1164002
> <
> > > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewQueued.html?itemId=1163998> with
> > > > Aleksey’s inspections profile.
> > > > > Core (long) and AOP (short) modules will be tested as example.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >> On 27 Mar 2018, at 19:38, Dmitry Pavlov <[hidden email]
> > > <mailto:
> > > > [hidden email]>> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Hi Petr,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Could you please take inspections and run it on AI code base in
> > > > >> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=
> > > >
> > IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%
> > > > 3E&tab=buildTypeStatusDiv <https://ci.ignite.apache.org/
> > > > viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore&branch_
> > > > IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E&tab=buildTypeStatusDiv>
> > > > >> ?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Sincerely,
> > > > >> Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > >>
> > > > >> вт, 27 мар. 2018 г. в 19:27, Dmitry Pavlov <[hidden email]
> >:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> Alexey, thank you for bring this topic to top.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> What do you think about committing this inspections into Ignite
> > code
> > > > base?
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> What can be our next steps after demonstrating CI check is
> possible
> > > > >>> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=
> > > >
> > IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%
> > > > 3E&tab=buildTypeStatusDiv
> > > > >>> ?
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Sincerely,
> > > > >>> Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> вт, 27 мар. 2018 г. в 15:28, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > >>>> :
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> Bumping up.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Attached is my local inspections profile exported from Idea.
> Let's
> > > run
> > > > >>>> the first iteration and check if it differs significantly from
> > other
> > > > >>>> community members.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> --AG
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> 2018-03-19 16:39 GMT+03:00 Petr Ivanov <[hidden email]>:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> Filed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7985 <
> > > > >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7985> [1].
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> On 18 Mar 2018, at 00:56, Dmitry Pavlov <
> [hidden email]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Hello Petr,
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Many members of the community would appreciate such additional
> > > code
> > > > >>>>> control, and it's a pity that no one made this happen. Agree?
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Could you please pick up this activity?
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> It might be an idea to create 'IDEA Inspections' step to be
> run
> > in
> > > > >>>>> parallel with 'Build Apache Ignite'. WDYT? Would it work?
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Sincerely,
> > > > >>>>>> Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> https://confluence.jetbrains.com/display/TCD10/Inspections <
> > > > >>>>> https://confluence.jetbrains.com/display/TCD10/Inspections>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> пн, 12 мар. 2018 г. в 14:37, Dmitry Pavlov <
> > [hidden email]
> > > > >>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Hi Dmitriy,
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> would you pick up this activity?
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Sincerely,
> > > > >>>>>> Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 14:09, Dmitry Pavlov <
> [hidden email]
> > > > >>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>> What I can suggest now it is to take XML file with existing as
> > is
> > > > from
> > > > >>>>> previous topic (I remember someone in community already
> prepared
> > > > settings)
> > > > >>>>> and set up TeamCity Run configuration as part of Run All Basic
> > > Tests
> > > > (per
> > > > >>>>> commit basis).
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> If we don’t have XML, I suggest to enable build-in Idea
> > > inspections
> > > > >>>>> 'as is' on TeamCity and iteratively improve it according to
> found
> > > > issues.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Dmitriy G., would you prepare PR and proof-of-concept TC run
> > > > >>>>> configuration?
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> As discussion became really active, I think that means
> community
> > > is
> > > > >>>>> interested in static code checks.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 14:08, Dmitry Pavlov <
> [hidden email]
> > > > >>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>> I was thinking about some quick check, which will
> automatically
> > > > >>>>> require minimum runs. Now, any committer can push changes to
> the
> > > > master,
> > > > >>>>> which break not only the inspection and style, but even the
> > > > compilation. If
> > > > >>>>> this control would be automatic, it can allow us make codebase
> > > > better quite
> > > > >>>>> fast. But I am afraid it is not realistic.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 13:42, Petr Ivanov <[hidden email]
> > > > <mailto:
> > > > >>>>> [hidden email]>>:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Sonar is powerful, yes, but it’s power in thoroughness. I.e.
> it
> > > does
> > > > >>>>> its job well in cases of leisurely post-build analysis.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> I’d suggest we use it (if we will use it) in the following
> > > > scenarios:
> > > > >>>>>> — some basic checks Sonar profile for Blocker bugs (it is
> fast)
> > —
> > > > >>>>> something that cannot be passed to master;
> > > > >>>>>> — nightly or even weekly run with Full Sonar profile (600+
> > checks
> > > > >>>>> from Firebug, Codestyle, Coverage, etc.) for regression and
> > overall
> > > > code
> > > > >>>>> quality improvement goals.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Did not quite get you about push-to-master prohibition. Can
> you
> > > > >>>>> explain scenario in more details?
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> On 6 Mar 2018, at 13:27, Dmitry Pavlov <
> [hidden email]
> > > > >>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Petr, I've heard Sonar is powerful tool.
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Would it help us to prohibit commits to master w/o test run /
> > too
> > > > >>>>> much
> > > > >>>>>>> failed tests / too much inspection errors appeared?
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 13:22, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > >>>>> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]
> >>:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Dmitriy,
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> I like this idea a lot. For example, the inspection profile
> > > should
> > > > >>>>> have
> > > > >>>>>>>> inspection 'Anonymous class can be converted to lambda'
> > disabled
> > > > >>>>> because
> > > > >>>>>>>> quite a lot of such classes can be sent over the network
> > > (although
> > > > >>>>> even
> > > > >>>>>>>> anonymous classes are discourage for such purposes).
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> I believe we can start with sharing somehow one of the
> > profiles
> > > > and
> > > > >>>>> then
> > > > >>>>>>>> iteratively improving it until the community is satisfied
> with
> > > the
> > > > >>>>> result.
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Thoughts?
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> 2018-03-06 12:06 GMT+03:00 Petr Ivanov <[hidden email]
> > > > <mailto:
> > > > >>>>> [hidden email]>>:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> We can use Sonar as instrument for code analysis and test
> > > > coverage
> > > > >>>>>>>>> inspections.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> On 6 Mar 2018, at 11:28, Dmitriy Govorukhin <
> > > > >>>>>>>>> [hidden email] <mailto:dmitriy.govorukhin@
> > > > gmail.com>>
> > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> As I understood, preview topic was of static code analysis
> > in
> > > > >>>>> general.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> In this topic, I want to discuss only idea inspection
> rule.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> In future, of course, we can expаnd this rule to the
> > TeamCity
> > > > >>>>> build.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:16 AM, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > >>>>> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Igniters.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> +1 to automatic code style tools.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Let's make it already!
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Do we have a ticket for it?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Related discussion -
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble <
> > > > >>>>> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble/>.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> com/Static-code-analysis-for-Java-td22195.html
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> В Вт, 06/03/2018 в 08:15 +0000, Dmitry Pavlov пишет:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Dmitriy,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should resurrect thread about addition of
> code
> > > > >>>>>>>> inspections,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> later we can enable automatic control step to TeamCity.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Could you help me to find it?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 11:11, Dmitriy Govorukhin <
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] <mailto:dmitriy.govorukhin@
> > > > gmail.com
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi folks,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Do we have 'inspection' [1] scheme for ignite?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I see a lot of warnings in my code, and I guess it is
> > > because
> > > > >>>>>>>> everyone
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> uses
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> different schemes.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's start the discussion.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] IDEA inspection
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.jetbrains.com/
> help/idea/code-inspection.html
> > <
> > > > >>>>> https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/code-inspection.html>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[Dmitriy Pavlov]

Bumping up. Igniters, please reply and provide feedback on inspections
settings.

I really prefer that we will merge inspections to codebase with clear
acknowledgment from active community members.

чт, 29 мар. 2018 г. в 12:03, Alexey Goncharuk <[hidden email]>:

> From what I see, it should be rather easy to get a meaningful number of
> inspection failures to get something we can start working with.
>
> Namely, we have:
> Overly strong type cast (206) - mechanical work, easy to fix
> Assignment replaceable with operator assignment (23) - either mechanical
> work, or disable inspection
> 'expression.equals("literal")' rather than '"literal".equals(expression)'
> (49) - mechanical work
> 'size() == 0' replaceable with 'isEmpty()' (67) - mechanical work
> Missorted modifiers (121) - mechanical work
> Redundant field initialization (76) - mechanical work or disable inspection
> Unnecessary 'this' qualifier (543) - mechanical work or disable inspection
> 'if' statement could be replaced with conditional expression (244) -
> mechanical work or disable inspection
> Redundant throws declaration (100) - mechanical work or disable inspection
> Redundant suppression (848) - mechanical work
> Missing @Override annotation (289) - mechanical work
> Property key/value delimiter doesn't match code style settings (2183) -
> disable inspection
> Unused Property (2180) - disable inspection
>
> For some of the inspections we have to agree whether we enforce a
> particular code style (for example, unnecessary 'this' qualifier).
> After this is done, the number of failed inspections will drop dramatically
> and we can start tracking changes and pay more attention to other
> inspection categories.
>
> --AG
>
> 2018-03-28 21:19 GMT+03:00 Peter Ivanov <[hidden email]>:
>
> > Anton, Dmitry is right.
> >
> > We have to manually add condition when to consider build faulty based on
> > how many failed inspection are there.
> >
> > For now I see this initiative as follows:
> > - find more or less correct set of inspections (there are lots of typos
> and
> > other irrelevant to code execution inspections) looking on the results of
> > core module build, as it has ~85% of target code;
> > - add all modules to composite project and setup schedule at least once a
> > week.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 at 19:09, Dmitry Pavlov <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Inspection suites should be failed manually by some fail condition.
> > >
> > > This question will become actual in future. How to fail such suite on
> TC?
> > >
> > > ср, 28 мар. 2018 г. в 18:54, Anton Vinogradov <[hidden email]>:
> > >
> > > > Peter,
> > > >
> > > > Why 44 errors are green?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1145974&
> > tab=buildResultsDiv&buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsAop
> > > >
> > > > 2018-03-28 16:27 GMT+03:00 Petr Ivanov <[hidden email]>:
> > > >
> > > > > After several problems, example run on Aleksey’s configuration is
> > > > > complete:
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1164652
> > <
> > > > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1164652>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > On 28 Mar 2018, at 10:28, Petr Ivanov <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Started
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1164002
> > <
> > > > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewQueued.html?itemId=1163998> with
> > > > > Aleksey’s inspections profile.
> > > > > > Core (long) and AOP (short) modules will be tested as example.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> On 27 Mar 2018, at 19:38, Dmitry Pavlov <[hidden email]
> > > > <mailto:
> > > > > [hidden email]>> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Hi Petr,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Could you please take inspections and run it on AI code base in
> > > > > >> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=
> > > > >
> > >
> IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%
> > > > > 3E&tab=buildTypeStatusDiv <https://ci.ignite.apache.org/
> > > > >
> viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore&branch_
> > > > > IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E&tab=buildTypeStatusDiv>
> > > > > >> ?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Sincerely,
> > > > > >> Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> вт, 27 мар. 2018 г. в 19:27, Dmitry Pavlov <
> [hidden email]
> > >:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> Alexey, thank you for bring this topic to top.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> What do you think about committing this inspections into Ignite
> > > code
> > > > > base?
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> What can be our next steps after demonstrating CI check is
> > possible
> > > > > >>> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=
> > > > >
> > >
> IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%
> > > > > 3E&tab=buildTypeStatusDiv
> > > > > >>> ?
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Sincerely,
> > > > > >>> Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> вт, 27 мар. 2018 г. в 15:28, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >>>> :
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> Bumping up.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Attached is my local inspections profile exported from Idea.
> > Let's
> > > > run
> > > > > >>>> the first iteration and check if it differs significantly from
> > > other
> > > > > >>>> community members.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> --AG
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> 2018-03-19 16:39 GMT+03:00 Petr Ivanov <[hidden email]>:
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Filed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7985 <
> > > > > >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7985> [1].
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> On 18 Mar 2018, at 00:56, Dmitry Pavlov <
> > [hidden email]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Hello Petr,
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Many members of the community would appreciate such
> additional
> > > > code
> > > > > >>>>> control, and it's a pity that no one made this happen. Agree?
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Could you please pick up this activity?
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> It might be an idea to create 'IDEA Inspections' step to be
> > run
> > > in
> > > > > >>>>> parallel with 'Build Apache Ignite'. WDYT? Would it work?
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Sincerely,
> > > > > >>>>>> Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> https://confluence.jetbrains.com/display/TCD10/Inspections <
> > > > > >>>>> https://confluence.jetbrains.com/display/TCD10/Inspections>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> пн, 12 мар. 2018 г. в 14:37, Dmitry Pavlov <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>:
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Hi Dmitriy,
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> would you pick up this activity?
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Sincerely,
> > > > > >>>>>> Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 14:09, Dmitry Pavlov <
> > [hidden email]
> > > > > >>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>:
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> What I can suggest now it is to take XML file with existing
> as
> > > is
> > > > > from
> > > > > >>>>> previous topic (I remember someone in community already
> > prepared
> > > > > settings)
> > > > > >>>>> and set up TeamCity Run configuration as part of Run All
> Basic
> > > > Tests
> > > > > (per
> > > > > >>>>> commit basis).
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> If we don’t have XML, I suggest to enable build-in Idea
> > > > inspections
> > > > > >>>>> 'as is' on TeamCity and iteratively improve it according to
> > found
> > > > > issues.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Dmitriy G., would you prepare PR and proof-of-concept TC run
> > > > > >>>>> configuration?
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> As discussion became really active, I think that means
> > community
> > > > is
> > > > > >>>>> interested in static code checks.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 14:08, Dmitry Pavlov <
> > [hidden email]
> > > > > >>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>:
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> I was thinking about some quick check, which will
> > automatically
> > > > > >>>>> require minimum runs. Now, any committer can push changes to
> > the
> > > > > master,
> > > > > >>>>> which break not only the inspection and style, but even the
> > > > > compilation. If
> > > > > >>>>> this control would be automatic, it can allow us make
> codebase
> > > > > better quite
> > > > > >>>>> fast. But I am afraid it is not realistic.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 13:42, Petr Ivanov <[hidden email]
> > > > > <mailto:
> > > > > >>>>> [hidden email]>>:
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Sonar is powerful, yes, but it’s power in thoroughness. I.e.
> > it
> > > > does
> > > > > >>>>> its job well in cases of leisurely post-build analysis.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> I’d suggest we use it (if we will use it) in the following
> > > > > scenarios:
> > > > > >>>>>> — some basic checks Sonar profile for Blocker bugs (it is
> > fast)
> > > —
> > > > > >>>>> something that cannot be passed to master;
> > > > > >>>>>> — nightly or even weekly run with Full Sonar profile (600+
> > > checks
> > > > > >>>>> from Firebug, Codestyle, Coverage, etc.) for regression and
> > > overall
> > > > > code
> > > > > >>>>> quality improvement goals.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Did not quite get you about push-to-master prohibition. Can
> > you
> > > > > >>>>> explain scenario in more details?
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> On 6 Mar 2018, at 13:27, Dmitry Pavlov <
> > [hidden email]
> > > > > >>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> Petr, I've heard Sonar is powerful tool.
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> Would it help us to prohibit commits to master w/o test
> run /
> > > too
> > > > > >>>>> much
> > > > > >>>>>>> failed tests / too much inspection errors appeared?
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 13:22, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > >>>>> [hidden email] <mailto:
> [hidden email]
> > >>:
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Dmitriy,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> I like this idea a lot. For example, the inspection
> profile
> > > > should
> > > > > >>>>> have
> > > > > >>>>>>>> inspection 'Anonymous class can be converted to lambda'
> > > disabled
> > > > > >>>>> because
> > > > > >>>>>>>> quite a lot of such classes can be sent over the network
> > > > (although
> > > > > >>>>> even
> > > > > >>>>>>>> anonymous classes are discourage for such purposes).
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> I believe we can start with sharing somehow one of the
> > > profiles
> > > > > and
> > > > > >>>>> then
> > > > > >>>>>>>> iteratively improving it until the community is satisfied
> > with
> > > > the
> > > > > >>>>> result.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Thoughts?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> 2018-03-06 12:06 GMT+03:00 Petr Ivanov <
> [hidden email]
> > > > > <mailto:
> > > > > >>>>> [hidden email]>>:
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> We can use Sonar as instrument for code analysis and test
> > > > > coverage
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> inspections.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On 6 Mar 2018, at 11:28, Dmitriy Govorukhin <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> [hidden email] <mailto:dmitriy.govorukhin@
> > > > > gmail.com>>
> > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> As I understood, preview topic was of static code
> analysis
> > > in
> > > > > >>>>> general.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> In this topic, I want to discuss only idea inspection
> > rule.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> In future, of course, we can expаnd this rule to the
> > > TeamCity
> > > > > >>>>> build.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:16 AM, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > >>>>> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Igniters.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> +1 to automatic code style tools.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Let's make it already!
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Do we have a ticket for it?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Related discussion -
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble <
> > > > > >>>>> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble/>.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> com/Static-code-analysis-for-Java-td22195.html
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> В Вт, 06/03/2018 в 08:15 +0000, Dmitry Pavlov пишет:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Dmitriy,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should resurrect thread about addition of
> > code
> > > > > >>>>>>>> inspections,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> later we can enable automatic control step to
> TeamCity.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Could you help me to find it?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 11:11, Dmitriy Govorukhin <
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] <mailto:
> dmitriy.govorukhin@
> > > > > gmail.com
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi folks,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Do we have 'inspection' [1] scheme for ignite?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I see a lot of warnings in my code, and I guess it is
> > > > because
> > > > > >>>>>>>> everyone
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> uses
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> different schemes.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's start the discussion.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] IDEA inspection
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.jetbrains.com/
> > help/idea/code-inspection.html
> > > <
> > > > > >>>>> https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/code-inspection.html>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[Andrey Kuznetsov]

Hi, Dmitry!

To me, it's better to disable the following:
 Unnecessary 'this' qualifier -- this will, for example, warn on
well-formed constructors.
 'if' statement could be replaced with conditional expression -- let's
decide on common sense basis whether it's appropriate, forceful
refactorings could lead to non-readable code.



2018-03-30 18:57 GMT+03:00 Dmitry Pavlov <[hidden email]>:

> Bumping up. Igniters, please reply and provide feedback on inspections
> settings.
>
> I really prefer that we will merge inspections to codebase with clear
> acknowledgment from active community members.
>
> чт, 29 мар. 2018 г. в 12:03, Alexey Goncharuk <[hidden email]
> >:
>
> > From what I see, it should be rather easy to get a meaningful number of
> > inspection failures to get something we can start working with.
> >
> > Namely, we have:
> > Overly strong type cast (206) - mechanical work, easy to fix
> > Assignment replaceable with operator assignment (23) - either mechanical
> > work, or disable inspection
> > 'expression.equals("literal")' rather than '"literal".equals(expression)'
> > (49) - mechanical work
> > 'size() == 0' replaceable with 'isEmpty()' (67) - mechanical work
> > Missorted modifiers (121) - mechanical work
> > Redundant field initialization (76) - mechanical work or disable
> inspection
> > Unnecessary 'this' qualifier (543) - mechanical work or disable
> inspection
> > 'if' statement could be replaced with conditional expression (244) -
> > mechanical work or disable inspection
> > Redundant throws declaration (100) - mechanical work or disable
> inspection
> > Redundant suppression (848) - mechanical work
> > Missing @Override annotation (289) - mechanical work
> > Property key/value delimiter doesn't match code style settings (2183) -
> > disable inspection
> > Unused Property (2180) - disable inspection
> >
> > For some of the inspections we have to agree whether we enforce a
> > particular code style (for example, unnecessary 'this' qualifier).
> > After this is done, the number of failed inspections will drop
> dramatically
> > and we can start tracking changes and pay more attention to other
> > inspection categories.
> >
> > --AG
> >
> > 2018-03-28 21:19 GMT+03:00 Peter Ivanov <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > > Anton, Dmitry is right.
> > >
> > > We have to manually add condition when to consider build faulty based
> on
> > > how many failed inspection are there.
> > >
> > > For now I see this initiative as follows:
> > > - find more or less correct set of inspections (there are lots of typos
> > and
> > > other irrelevant to code execution inspections) looking on the results
> of
> > > core module build, as it has ~85% of target code;
> > > - add all modules to composite project and setup schedule at least
> once a
> > > week.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 at 19:09, Dmitry Pavlov <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Inspection suites should be failed manually by some fail condition.
> > > >
> > > > This question will become actual in future. How to fail such suite on
> > TC?
> > > >
> > > > ср, 28 мар. 2018 г. в 18:54, Anton Vinogradov <[hidden email]>:
> > > >
> > > > > Peter,
> > > > >
> > > > > Why 44 errors are green?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1145974&
> > > tab=buildResultsDiv&buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsAop
> > > > >
> > > > > 2018-03-28 16:27 GMT+03:00 Petr Ivanov <[hidden email]>:
> > > > >
> > > > > > After several problems, example run on Aleksey’s configuration is
> > > > > > complete:
> > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1164652
> > > <
> > > > > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1164652>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 28 Mar 2018, at 10:28, Petr Ivanov <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Started
> > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1164002
> > > <
> > > > > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewQueued.html?itemId=1163998>
> with
> > > > > > Aleksey’s inspections profile.
> > > > > > > Core (long) and AOP (short) modules will be tested as example.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> On 27 Mar 2018, at 19:38, Dmitry Pavlov <
> [hidden email]
> > > > > <mailto:
> > > > > > [hidden email]>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Hi Petr,
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Could you please take inspections and run it on AI code base
> in
> > > > > > >> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%
> > > > > > 3E&tab=buildTypeStatusDiv <https://ci.ignite.apache.org/
> > > > > >
> > viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore&branch_
> > > > > > IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E&tab=buildTypeStatusDiv>
> > > > > > >> ?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Sincerely,
> > > > > > >> Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> вт, 27 мар. 2018 г. в 19:27, Dmitry Pavlov <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>> Alexey, thank you for bring this topic to top.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> What do you think about committing this inspections into
> Ignite
> > > > code
> > > > > > base?
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> What can be our next steps after demonstrating CI check is
> > > possible
> > > > > > >>> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%
> > > > > > 3E&tab=buildTypeStatusDiv
> > > > > > >>> ?
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Sincerely,
> > > > > > >>> Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> вт, 27 мар. 2018 г. в 15:28, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >>>> :
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>> Bumping up.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> Attached is my local inspections profile exported from Idea.
> > > Let's
> > > > > run
> > > > > > >>>> the first iteration and check if it differs significantly
> from
> > > > other
> > > > > > >>>> community members.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> --AG
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> 2018-03-19 16:39 GMT+03:00 Petr Ivanov <[hidden email]
> >:
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Filed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7985 <
> > > > > > >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7985> [1].
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> On 18 Mar 2018, at 00:56, Dmitry Pavlov <
> > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> Hello Petr,
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> Many members of the community would appreciate such
> > additional
> > > > > code
> > > > > > >>>>> control, and it's a pity that no one made this happen.
> Agree?
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> Could you please pick up this activity?
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> It might be an idea to create 'IDEA Inspections' step to
> be
> > > run
> > > > in
> > > > > > >>>>> parallel with 'Build Apache Ignite'. WDYT? Would it work?
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> Sincerely,
> > > > > > >>>>>> Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> https://confluence.jetbrains.com/display/TCD10/Inspections
> <
> > > > > > >>>>> https://confluence.jetbrains.com/display/TCD10/Inspections
> >
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> пн, 12 мар. 2018 г. в 14:37, Dmitry Pavlov <
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>:
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> Hi Dmitriy,
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> would you pick up this activity?
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> Sincerely,
> > > > > > >>>>>> Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 14:09, Dmitry Pavlov <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>:
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> What I can suggest now it is to take XML file with
> existing
> > as
> > > > is
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > >>>>> previous topic (I remember someone in community already
> > > prepared
> > > > > > settings)
> > > > > > >>>>> and set up TeamCity Run configuration as part of Run All
> > Basic
> > > > > Tests
> > > > > > (per
> > > > > > >>>>> commit basis).
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> If we don’t have XML, I suggest to enable build-in Idea
> > > > > inspections
> > > > > > >>>>> 'as is' on TeamCity and iteratively improve it according to
> > > found
> > > > > > issues.
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> Dmitriy G., would you prepare PR and proof-of-concept TC
> run
> > > > > > >>>>> configuration?
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> As discussion became really active, I think that means
> > > community
> > > > > is
> > > > > > >>>>> interested in static code checks.
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 14:08, Dmitry Pavlov <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>:
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> I was thinking about some quick check, which will
> > > automatically
> > > > > > >>>>> require minimum runs. Now, any committer can push changes
> to
> > > the
> > > > > > master,
> > > > > > >>>>> which break not only the inspection and style, but even the
> > > > > > compilation. If
> > > > > > >>>>> this control would be automatic, it can allow us make
> > codebase
> > > > > > better quite
> > > > > > >>>>> fast. But I am afraid it is not realistic.
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 13:42, Petr Ivanov <
> [hidden email]
> > > > > > <mailto:
> > > > > > >>>>> [hidden email]>>:
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> Sonar is powerful, yes, but it’s power in thoroughness.
> I.e.
> > > it
> > > > > does
> > > > > > >>>>> its job well in cases of leisurely post-build analysis.
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> I’d suggest we use it (if we will use it) in the following
> > > > > > scenarios:
> > > > > > >>>>>> — some basic checks Sonar profile for Blocker bugs (it is
> > > fast)
> > > > —
> > > > > > >>>>> something that cannot be passed to master;
> > > > > > >>>>>> — nightly or even weekly run with Full Sonar profile (600+
> > > > checks
> > > > > > >>>>> from Firebug, Codestyle, Coverage, etc.) for regression and
> > > > overall
> > > > > > code
> > > > > > >>>>> quality improvement goals.
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> Did not quite get you about push-to-master prohibition.
> Can
> > > you
> > > > > > >>>>> explain scenario in more details?
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> On 6 Mar 2018, at 13:27, Dmitry Pavlov <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Petr, I've heard Sonar is powerful tool.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Would it help us to prohibit commits to master w/o test
> > run /
> > > > too
> > > > > > >>>>> much
> > > > > > >>>>>>> failed tests / too much inspection errors appeared?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 13:22, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > > >>>>> [hidden email] <mailto:
> > [hidden email]
> > > >>:
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Dmitriy,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> I like this idea a lot. For example, the inspection
> > profile
> > > > > should
> > > > > > >>>>> have
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> inspection 'Anonymous class can be converted to lambda'
> > > > disabled
> > > > > > >>>>> because
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> quite a lot of such classes can be sent over the network
> > > > > (although
> > > > > > >>>>> even
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> anonymous classes are discourage for such purposes).
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> I believe we can start with sharing somehow one of the
> > > > profiles
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > >>>>> then
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> iteratively improving it until the community is
> satisfied
> > > with
> > > > > the
> > > > > > >>>>> result.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Thoughts?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> 2018-03-06 12:06 GMT+03:00 Petr Ivanov <
> > [hidden email]
> > > > > > <mailto:
> > > > > > >>>>> [hidden email]>>:
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> We can use Sonar as instrument for code analysis and
> test
> > > > > > coverage
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> inspections.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On 6 Mar 2018, at 11:28, Dmitriy Govorukhin <
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> [hidden email] <mailto:
> dmitriy.govorukhin@
> > > > > > gmail.com>>
> > > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> As I understood, preview topic was of static code
> > analysis
> > > > in
> > > > > > >>>>> general.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> In this topic, I want to discuss only idea inspection
> > > rule.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> In future, of course, we can expаnd this rule to the
> > > > TeamCity
> > > > > > >>>>> build.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:16 AM, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > > >>>>> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Igniters.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> +1 to automatic code style tools.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Let's make it already!
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Do we have a ticket for it?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Related discussion -
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble <
> > > > > > >>>>> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble/>.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> com/Static-code-analysis-for-Java-td22195.html
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> В Вт, 06/03/2018 в 08:15 +0000, Dmitry Pavlov пишет:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Dmitriy,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should resurrect thread about addition of
> > > code
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> inspections,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> later we can enable automatic control step to
> > TeamCity.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Could you help me to find it?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 11:11, Dmitriy Govorukhin <
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] <mailto:
> > dmitriy.govorukhin@
> > > > > > gmail.com
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi folks,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Do we have 'inspection' [1] scheme for ignite?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I see a lot of warnings in my code, and I guess it
> is
> > > > > because
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> everyone
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> uses
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> different schemes.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's start the discussion.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] IDEA inspection
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.jetbrains.com/
> > > help/idea/code-inspection.html
> > > > <
> > > > > > >>>>> https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/code-inspection.html>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

--
Best regards,
  Andrey Kuznetsov.

[Dmitriy Pavlov]

Hi Igniters,

I understand it is not so Apache-way from my side to ask volunteers to do
some things (instead of contributing it by myself). But I still interested
- if we need code inspection or not,
- and who would like to spend odd hour and sett up some regular/manual
scans.

Sincerely,
Dmitriy Pavlov

пт, 30 мар. 2018 г. в 19:15, Andrey Kuznetsov <[hidden email]>:

> Hi, Dmitry!
>
> To me, it's better to disable the following:
>  Unnecessary 'this' qualifier -- this will, for example, warn on
> well-formed constructors.
>  'if' statement could be replaced with conditional expression -- let's
> decide on common sense basis whether it's appropriate, forceful
> refactorings could lead to non-readable code.
>
>
>
> 2018-03-30 18:57 GMT+03:00 Dmitry Pavlov <[hidden email]>:
>
> > Bumping up. Igniters, please reply and provide feedback on inspections
> > settings.
> >
> > I really prefer that we will merge inspections to codebase with clear
> > acknowledgment from active community members.
> >
> > чт, 29 мар. 2018 г. в 12:03, Alexey Goncharuk <
> [hidden email]
> > >:
> >
> > > From what I see, it should be rather easy to get a meaningful number of
> > > inspection failures to get something we can start working with.
> > >
> > > Namely, we have:
> > > Overly strong type cast (206) - mechanical work, easy to fix
> > > Assignment replaceable with operator assignment (23) - either
> mechanical
> > > work, or disable inspection
> > > 'expression.equals("literal")' rather than
> '"literal".equals(expression)'
> > > (49) - mechanical work
> > > 'size() == 0' replaceable with 'isEmpty()' (67) - mechanical work
> > > Missorted modifiers (121) - mechanical work
> > > Redundant field initialization (76) - mechanical work or disable
> > inspection
> > > Unnecessary 'this' qualifier (543) - mechanical work or disable
> > inspection
> > > 'if' statement could be replaced with conditional expression (244) -
> > > mechanical work or disable inspection
> > > Redundant throws declaration (100) - mechanical work or disable
> > inspection
> > > Redundant suppression (848) - mechanical work
> > > Missing @Override annotation (289) - mechanical work
> > > Property key/value delimiter doesn't match code style settings (2183) -
> > > disable inspection
> > > Unused Property (2180) - disable inspection
> > >
> > > For some of the inspections we have to agree whether we enforce a
> > > particular code style (for example, unnecessary 'this' qualifier).
> > > After this is done, the number of failed inspections will drop
> > dramatically
> > > and we can start tracking changes and pay more attention to other
> > > inspection categories.
> > >
> > > --AG
> > >
> > > 2018-03-28 21:19 GMT+03:00 Peter Ivanov <[hidden email]>:
> > >
> > > > Anton, Dmitry is right.
> > > >
> > > > We have to manually add condition when to consider build faulty based
> > on
> > > > how many failed inspection are there.
> > > >
> > > > For now I see this initiative as follows:
> > > > - find more or less correct set of inspections (there are lots of
> typos
> > > and
> > > > other irrelevant to code execution inspections) looking on the
> results
> > of
> > > > core module build, as it has ~85% of target code;
> > > > - add all modules to composite project and setup schedule at least
> > once a
> > > > week.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 at 19:09, Dmitry Pavlov <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Inspection suites should be failed manually by some fail condition.
> > > > >
> > > > > This question will become actual in future. How to fail such suite
> on
> > > TC?
> > > > >
> > > > > ср, 28 мар. 2018 г. в 18:54, Anton Vinogradov <[hidden email]>:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Peter,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why 44 errors are green?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1145974&
> > > > tab=buildResultsDiv&buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsAop
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2018-03-28 16:27 GMT+03:00 Petr Ivanov <[hidden email]>:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > After several problems, example run on Aleksey’s configuration
> is
> > > > > > > complete:
> > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1164652
> > > > <
> > > > > > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1164652>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 28 Mar 2018, at 10:28, Petr Ivanov <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Started
> > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1164002
> > > > <
> > > > > > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewQueued.html?itemId=1163998>
> > with
> > > > > > > Aleksey’s inspections profile.
> > > > > > > > Core (long) and AOP (short) modules will be tested as
> example.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> On 27 Mar 2018, at 19:38, Dmitry Pavlov <
> > [hidden email]
> > > > > > <mailto:
> > > > > > > [hidden email]>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Hi Petr,
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Could you please take inspections and run it on AI code base
> > in
> > > > > > > >> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%
> > > > > > > 3E&tab=buildTypeStatusDiv <https://ci.ignite.apache.org/
> > > > > > >
> > > viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore&branch_
> > > > > > > IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E&tab=buildTypeStatusDiv>
> > > > > > > >> ?
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Sincerely,
> > > > > > > >> Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> вт, 27 мар. 2018 г. в 19:27, Dmitry Pavlov <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > >:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>> Alexey, thank you for bring this topic to top.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> What do you think about committing this inspections into
> > Ignite
> > > > > code
> > > > > > > base?
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> What can be our next steps after demonstrating CI check is
> > > > possible
> > > > > > > >>> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%
> > > > > > > 3E&tab=buildTypeStatusDiv
> > > > > > > >>> ?
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> Sincerely,
> > > > > > > >>> Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> вт, 27 мар. 2018 г. в 15:28, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > >>>> :
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>> Bumping up.
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> Attached is my local inspections profile exported from
> Idea.
> > > > Let's
> > > > > > run
> > > > > > > >>>> the first iteration and check if it differs significantly
> > from
> > > > > other
> > > > > > > >>>> community members.
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> --AG
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> 2018-03-19 16:39 GMT+03:00 Petr Ivanov <
> [hidden email]
> > >:
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> Filed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7985
> <
> > > > > > > >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7985> [1].
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> On 18 Mar 2018, at 00:56, Dmitry Pavlov <
> > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Hello Petr,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Many members of the community would appreciate such
> > > additional
> > > > > > code
> > > > > > > >>>>> control, and it's a pity that no one made this happen.
> > Agree?
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Could you please pick up this activity?
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> It might be an idea to create 'IDEA Inspections' step to
> > be
> > > > run
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > >>>>> parallel with 'Build Apache Ignite'. WDYT? Would it work?
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Sincerely,
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> https://confluence.jetbrains.com/display/TCD10/Inspections
> > <
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> https://confluence.jetbrains.com/display/TCD10/Inspections
> > >
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> пн, 12 мар. 2018 г. в 14:37, Dmitry Pavlov <
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > >>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>:
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Hi Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> would you pick up this activity?
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Sincerely,
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 14:09, Dmitry Pavlov <
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > >>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>:
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> What I can suggest now it is to take XML file with
> > existing
> > > as
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > >>>>> previous topic (I remember someone in community already
> > > > prepared
> > > > > > > settings)
> > > > > > > >>>>> and set up TeamCity Run configuration as part of Run All
> > > Basic
> > > > > > Tests
> > > > > > > (per
> > > > > > > >>>>> commit basis).
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> If we don’t have XML, I suggest to enable build-in Idea
> > > > > > inspections
> > > > > > > >>>>> 'as is' on TeamCity and iteratively improve it according
> to
> > > > found
> > > > > > > issues.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Dmitriy G., would you prepare PR and proof-of-concept TC
> > run
> > > > > > > >>>>> configuration?
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> As discussion became really active, I think that means
> > > > community
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > >>>>> interested in static code checks.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 14:08, Dmitry Pavlov <
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > >>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>:
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> I was thinking about some quick check, which will
> > > > automatically
> > > > > > > >>>>> require minimum runs. Now, any committer can push changes
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > > > > master,
> > > > > > > >>>>> which break not only the inspection and style, but even
> the
> > > > > > > compilation. If
> > > > > > > >>>>> this control would be automatic, it can allow us make
> > > codebase
> > > > > > > better quite
> > > > > > > >>>>> fast. But I am afraid it is not realistic.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 13:42, Petr Ivanov <
> > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > <mailto:
> > > > > > > >>>>> [hidden email]>>:
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Sonar is powerful, yes, but it’s power in thoroughness.
> > I.e.
> > > > it
> > > > > > does
> > > > > > > >>>>> its job well in cases of leisurely post-build analysis.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> I’d suggest we use it (if we will use it) in the
> following
> > > > > > > scenarios:
> > > > > > > >>>>>> — some basic checks Sonar profile for Blocker bugs (it
> is
> > > > fast)
> > > > > —
> > > > > > > >>>>> something that cannot be passed to master;
> > > > > > > >>>>>> — nightly or even weekly run with Full Sonar profile
> (600+
> > > > > checks
> > > > > > > >>>>> from Firebug, Codestyle, Coverage, etc.) for regression
> and
> > > > > overall
> > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > >>>>> quality improvement goals.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Did not quite get you about push-to-master prohibition.
> > Can
> > > > you
> > > > > > > >>>>> explain scenario in more details?
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> On 6 Mar 2018, at 13:27, Dmitry Pavlov <
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > >>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> Petr, I've heard Sonar is powerful tool.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> Would it help us to prohibit commits to master w/o test
> > > run /
> > > > > too
> > > > > > > >>>>> much
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> failed tests / too much inspection errors appeared?
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 13:22, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > > > >>>>> [hidden email] <mailto:
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > >>:
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> I like this idea a lot. For example, the inspection
> > > profile
> > > > > > should
> > > > > > > >>>>> have
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> inspection 'Anonymous class can be converted to
> lambda'
> > > > > disabled
> > > > > > > >>>>> because
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> quite a lot of such classes can be sent over the
> network
> > > > > > (although
> > > > > > > >>>>> even
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> anonymous classes are discourage for such purposes).
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> I believe we can start with sharing somehow one of the
> > > > > profiles
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > >>>>> then
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> iteratively improving it until the community is
> > satisfied
> > > > with
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>>>> result.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Thoughts?
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> 2018-03-06 12:06 GMT+03:00 Petr Ivanov <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > <mailto:
> > > > > > > >>>>> [hidden email]>>:
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> We can use Sonar as instrument for code analysis and
> > test
> > > > > > > coverage
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> inspections.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On 6 Mar 2018, at 11:28, Dmitriy Govorukhin <
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> [hidden email] <mailto:
> > dmitriy.govorukhin@
> > > > > > > gmail.com>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> As I understood, preview topic was of static code
> > > analysis
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > >>>>> general.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> In this topic, I want to discuss only idea
> inspection
> > > > rule.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> In future, of course, we can expаnd this rule to the
> > > > > TeamCity
> > > > > > > >>>>> build.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:16 AM, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > > > >>>>> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Igniters.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> +1 to automatic code style tools.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Let's make it already!
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Do we have a ticket for it?
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Related discussion -
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble <
> > > > > > > >>>>> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble/>.
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> com/Static-code-analysis-for-Java-td22195.html
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> В Вт, 06/03/2018 в 08:15 +0000, Dmitry Pavlov
> пишет:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should resurrect thread about addition
> of
> > > > code
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> inspections,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> later we can enable automatic control step to
> > > TeamCity.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Could you help me to find it?
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 11:11, Dmitriy Govorukhin <
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] <mailto:
> > > dmitriy.govorukhin@
> > > > > > > gmail.com
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi folks,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Do we have 'inspection' [1] scheme for ignite?
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I see a lot of warnings in my code, and I guess
> it
> > is
> > > > > > because
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> everyone
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> uses
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> different schemes.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's start the discussion.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] IDEA inspection
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.jetbrains.com/
> > > > help/idea/code-inspection.html
> > > > > <
> > > > > > > >>>>> https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/code-inspection.html
> >>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>   Andrey Kuznetsov.
>

[dsetrakyan]

On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 7:49 AM, Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]>
wrote:

>
> I understand it is not so Apache-way from my side to ask volunteers to do
> some things (instead of contributing it by myself).


Dmitriy, I am not sure why you feel this is not the Apache way. No one can
do everything themselves.  You should absolutely keep recruiting more
volunteers from the community.

D.

[Dmitriy Pavlov]

Ideally, I should not asking for people to solve something for me.

I just want this idea did not disappear from our radar.

пт, 3 авг. 2018 г. в 23:47, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]>:

> On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 7:49 AM, Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > I understand it is not so Apache-way from my side to ask volunteers to do
> > some things (instead of contributing it by myself).
>
>
> Dmitriy, I am not sure why you feel this is not the Apache way. No one can
> do everything themselves.  You should absolutely keep recruiting more
> volunteers from the community.
>
> D.
>

[Dmitriy Pavlov]

Hi Dmitriy Govoruknin,

It seems there is a lack of volunteers to apply code inspections to our CI
& patch submission process. Probably we could come back to your
initial idea about setting up inspection locally.

Could you commit or share your IDEA inspection settings? I could apply it
at least on my machine and remove odd warning types one by one. What do you
think?

Sincerely,
Dmitriy Pavlov

сб, 4 авг. 2018 г. в 1:22, Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]>:

> Ideally, I should not asking for people to solve something for me.
>
> I just want this idea did not disappear from our radar.
>
> пт, 3 авг. 2018 г. в 23:47, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]>:
>
>> On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 7:49 AM, Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > I understand it is not so Apache-way from my side to ask volunteers to
>> do
>> > some things (instead of contributing it by myself).
>>
>>
>> Dmitriy, I am not sure why you feel this is not the Apache way. No one can
>> do everything themselves.  You should absolutely keep recruiting more
>> volunteers from the community.
>>
>> D.
>>
>

[Mmuzaf]

Dmitry and other Igniters,

Previously you has suggested to commit `Code Inspections` into Ignite
codebase.
It makes sense for me. I think it's the easiest way to share this profile
among community
members and this inspection can be set as for the project level.
So, I suggest:

1) According to Jetbrains documentation [1] the inspection profile can be
placed to
`<project>/.idea/inspectionProfiles` with name `Project_Default.xml`
(hope most of us using IDEA for development)
This allows enable this profile automatically on per project level and will
simplify
development process according to rules accepted by our community.

2) I can file tickets and do some of them to fix inspection failures which
Alexey mentioned
earlier. Hope other members of community will help me with it.

3) I think `Inspections (Core)` TeamCity can be triggered as nightly build
as it takes more
than 4 hours. Suppose, inspection build in each PR is not the best way in
our case. New run
here [2].

4) We can tune our MTCGA.Bot to notify members with new inspection failures
added by them.


Also, I've taken Alexey's inspection file as an example, I’ve checked what
we already discussed
previously (e.g. `Anonymous class can be converted to lambda` should be
disabled by default)
and added these additional rules to it:
 - General | Line is longer than allowed by code style
 - Java | Code maturity | Call to 'printStackTrace()'
 - Java | Code style issues | Unnecessary 'null' check before 'equals()'
call

If we decide to proceed I will attach this file to JIRA.


[1] https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/code-inspection.html
[2]
https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore&tab=buildTypeStatusDiv&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=pull%2F3710%2Fhead


On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 at 16:19 Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Dmitriy Govoruknin,
>
> It seems there is a lack of volunteers to apply code inspections to our CI
> & patch submission process. Probably we could come back to your
> initial idea about setting up inspection locally.
>
> Could you commit or share your IDEA inspection settings? I could apply it
> at least on my machine and remove odd warning types one by one. What do you
> think?
>
> Sincerely,
> Dmitriy Pavlov
>
> сб, 4 авг. 2018 г. в 1:22, Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]>:
>
> > Ideally, I should not asking for people to solve something for me.
> >
> > I just want this idea did not disappear from our radar.
> >
> > пт, 3 авг. 2018 г. в 23:47, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]>:
> >
> >> On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 7:49 AM, Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > I understand it is not so Apache-way from my side to ask volunteers to
> >> do
> >> > some things (instead of contributing it by myself).
> >>
> >>
> >> Dmitriy, I am not sure why you feel this is not the Apache way. No one
> can
> >> do everything themselves.  You should absolutely keep recruiting more
> >> volunteers from the community.
> >>
> >> D.
> >>
> >
>

--
--
Maxim Muzafarov

[Dmitriy Pavlov]

Hi Maxim,

Thank you for stepping in. I've committed the first version here
'idea/ignite_inspections.xml'. We can move it to project default later when
all inspection problems are fixed.
Commit:
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=ignite.git;a=commit;h=3e0f04edf7cc0aa1631fbd1b9af1e9b87b697eb1


Igniters,

you can enable this profile using the following steps: Inspections
(icon)->Configure inspections->(settings button)->Import Profile->select
file and import.

Sincerely,
Dmitriy Pavlov

вт, 14 авг. 2018 г. в 16:31, Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]>:

> Dmitry and other Igniters,
>
> Previously you has suggested to commit `Code Inspections` into Ignite
> codebase.
> It makes sense for me. I think it's the easiest way to share this profile
> among community
> members and this inspection can be set as for the project level.
> So, I suggest:
>
> 1) According to Jetbrains documentation [1] the inspection profile can be
> placed to
> `<project>/.idea/inspectionProfiles` with name `Project_Default.xml`
> (hope most of us using IDEA for development)
> This allows enable this profile automatically on per project level and will
> simplify
> development process according to rules accepted by our community.
>
> 2) I can file tickets and do some of them to fix inspection failures which
> Alexey mentioned
> earlier. Hope other members of community will help me with it.
>
> 3) I think `Inspections (Core)` TeamCity can be triggered as nightly build
> as it takes more
> than 4 hours. Suppose, inspection build in each PR is not the best way in
> our case. New run
> here [2].
>
> 4) We can tune our MTCGA.Bot to notify members with new inspection failures
> added by them.
>
>
> Also, I've taken Alexey's inspection file as an example, I’ve checked what
> we already discussed
> previously (e.g. `Anonymous class can be converted to lambda` should be
> disabled by default)
> and added these additional rules to it:
>  - General | Line is longer than allowed by code style
>  - Java | Code maturity | Call to 'printStackTrace()'
>  - Java | Code style issues | Unnecessary 'null' check before 'equals()'
> call
>
> If we decide to proceed I will attach this file to JIRA.
>
>
> [1] https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/code-inspection.html
> [2]
>
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore&tab=buildTypeStatusDiv&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=pull%2F3710%2Fhead
>
>
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 at 16:19 Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Hi Dmitriy Govoruknin,
> >
> > It seems there is a lack of volunteers to apply code inspections to our
> CI
> > & patch submission process. Probably we could come back to your
> > initial idea about setting up inspection locally.
> >
> > Could you commit or share your IDEA inspection settings? I could apply it
> > at least on my machine and remove odd warning types one by one. What do
> you
> > think?
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Dmitriy Pavlov
> >
> > сб, 4 авг. 2018 г. в 1:22, Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > > Ideally, I should not asking for people to solve something for me.
> > >
> > > I just want this idea did not disappear from our radar.
> > >
> > > пт, 3 авг. 2018 г. в 23:47, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]>:
> > >
> > >> On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 7:49 AM, Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]
> >
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> > I understand it is not so Apache-way from my side to ask volunteers
> to
> > >> do
> > >> > some things (instead of contributing it by myself).
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Dmitriy, I am not sure why you feel this is not the Apache way. No one
> > can
> > >> do everything themselves.  You should absolutely keep recruiting more
> > >> volunteers from the community.
> > >>
> > >> D.
> > >>
> > >
> >
> --
> --
> Maxim Muzafarov
>

[Dmitriy Pavlov]

I've updated wiki page
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Coding+Guidelines#CodingGuidelines-C.CodeInspection
with
reference to settings.xml placement in the project.

It is only advice, so I hope you don't mind having this reference.

ср, 15 авг. 2018 г. в 16:45, Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]>:

> Hi Maxim,
>
> Thank you for stepping in. I've committed the first version here
> 'idea/ignite_inspections.xml'. We can move it to project default later when
> all inspection problems are fixed.
> Commit:
>
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=ignite.git;a=commit;h=3e0f04edf7cc0aa1631fbd1b9af1e9b87b697eb1
>
>
> Igniters,
>
> you can enable this profile using the following steps: Inspections
> (icon)->Configure inspections->(settings button)->Import Profile->select
> file and import.
>
> Sincerely,
> Dmitriy Pavlov
>
> вт, 14 авг. 2018 г. в 16:31, Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]>:
>
>> Dmitry and other Igniters,
>>
>> Previously you has suggested to commit `Code Inspections` into Ignite
>> codebase.
>> It makes sense for me. I think it's the easiest way to share this profile
>> among community
>> members and this inspection can be set as for the project level.
>> So, I suggest:
>>
>> 1) According to Jetbrains documentation [1] the inspection profile can be
>> placed to
>> `<project>/.idea/inspectionProfiles` with name `Project_Default.xml`
>> (hope most of us using IDEA for development)
>> This allows enable this profile automatically on per project level and
>> will
>> simplify
>> development process according to rules accepted by our community.
>>
>> 2) I can file tickets and do some of them to fix inspection failures which
>> Alexey mentioned
>> earlier. Hope other members of community will help me with it.
>>
>> 3) I think `Inspections (Core)` TeamCity can be triggered as nightly build
>> as it takes more
>> than 4 hours. Suppose, inspection build in each PR is not the best way in
>> our case. New run
>> here [2].
>>
>> 4) We can tune our MTCGA.Bot to notify members with new inspection
>> failures
>> added by them.
>>
>>
>> Also, I've taken Alexey's inspection file as an example, I’ve checked what
>> we already discussed
>> previously (e.g. `Anonymous class can be converted to lambda` should be
>> disabled by default)
>> and added these additional rules to it:
>>  - General | Line is longer than allowed by code style
>>  - Java | Code maturity | Call to 'printStackTrace()'
>>  - Java | Code style issues | Unnecessary 'null' check before 'equals()'
>> call
>>
>> If we decide to proceed I will attach this file to JIRA.
>>
>>
>> [1] https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/code-inspection.html
>> [2]
>>
>> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore&tab=buildTypeStatusDiv&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=pull%2F3710%2Fhead
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 at 16:19 Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Dmitriy Govoruknin,
>> >
>> > It seems there is a lack of volunteers to apply code inspections to our
>> CI
>> > & patch submission process. Probably we could come back to your
>> > initial idea about setting up inspection locally.
>> >
>> > Could you commit or share your IDEA inspection settings? I could apply
>> it
>> > at least on my machine and remove odd warning types one by one. What do
>> you
>> > think?
>> >
>> > Sincerely,
>> > Dmitriy Pavlov
>> >
>> > сб, 4 авг. 2018 г. в 1:22, Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]>:
>> >
>> > > Ideally, I should not asking for people to solve something for me.
>> > >
>> > > I just want this idea did not disappear from our radar.
>> > >
>> > > пт, 3 авг. 2018 г. в 23:47, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]
>> >:
>> > >
>> > >> On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 7:49 AM, Dmitriy Pavlov <
>> [hidden email]>
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> >
>> > >> > I understand it is not so Apache-way from my side to ask
>> volunteers to
>> > >> do
>> > >> > some things (instead of contributing it by myself).
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> Dmitriy, I am not sure why you feel this is not the Apache way. No
>> one
>> > can
>> > >> do everything themselves.  You should absolutely keep recruiting more
>> > >> volunteers from the community.
>> > >>
>> > >> D.
>> > >>
>> > >
>> >
>> --
>> --
>> Maxim Muzafarov
>>
>

[Pavel Pereslegin]

Hello Igniters.

It seems that "idea/ignite_inspections.xml" should be excluded from
"check-licenses" maven profile, because "_Licenses Headers_"
configuration always fails now [1] on TeamCity.

[1] https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_LicensesHeaders&tab=buildTypeHistoryList&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E
ср, 15 авг. 2018 г. в 20:49, Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]>:

>
> I've updated wiki page
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Coding+Guidelines#CodingGuidelines-C.CodeInspection
> with
> reference to settings.xml placement in the project.
>
> It is only advice, so I hope you don't mind having this reference.
>
> ср, 15 авг. 2018 г. в 16:45, Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]>:
>
> > Hi Maxim,
> >
> > Thank you for stepping in. I've committed the first version here
> > 'idea/ignite_inspections.xml'. We can move it to project default later when
> > all inspection problems are fixed.
> > Commit:
> >
> > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=ignite.git;a=commit;h=3e0f04edf7cc0aa1631fbd1b9af1e9b87b697eb1
> >
> >
> > Igniters,
> >
> > you can enable this profile using the following steps: Inspections
> > (icon)->Configure inspections->(settings button)->Import Profile->select
> > file and import.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Dmitriy Pavlov
> >
> > вт, 14 авг. 2018 г. в 16:31, Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]>:
> >
> >> Dmitry and other Igniters,
> >>
> >> Previously you has suggested to commit `Code Inspections` into Ignite
> >> codebase.
> >> It makes sense for me. I think it's the easiest way to share this profile
> >> among community
> >> members and this inspection can be set as for the project level.
> >> So, I suggest:
> >>
> >> 1) According to Jetbrains documentation [1] the inspection profile can be
> >> placed to
> >> `<project>/.idea/inspectionProfiles` with name `Project_Default.xml`
> >> (hope most of us using IDEA for development)
> >> This allows enable this profile automatically on per project level and
> >> will
> >> simplify
> >> development process according to rules accepted by our community.
> >>
> >> 2) I can file tickets and do some of them to fix inspection failures which
> >> Alexey mentioned
> >> earlier. Hope other members of community will help me with it.
> >>
> >> 3) I think `Inspections (Core)` TeamCity can be triggered as nightly build
> >> as it takes more
> >> than 4 hours. Suppose, inspection build in each PR is not the best way in
> >> our case. New run
> >> here [2].
> >>
> >> 4) We can tune our MTCGA.Bot to notify members with new inspection
> >> failures
> >> added by them.
> >>
> >>
> >> Also, I've taken Alexey's inspection file as an example, I’ve checked what
> >> we already discussed
> >> previously (e.g. `Anonymous class can be converted to lambda` should be
> >> disabled by default)
> >> and added these additional rules to it:
> >>  - General | Line is longer than allowed by code style
> >>  - Java | Code maturity | Call to 'printStackTrace()'
> >>  - Java | Code style issues | Unnecessary 'null' check before 'equals()'
> >> call
> >>
> >> If we decide to proceed I will attach this file to JIRA.
> >>
> >>
> >> [1] https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/code-inspection.html
> >> [2]
> >>
> >> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore&tab=buildTypeStatusDiv&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=pull%2F3710%2Fhead
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 at 16:19 Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hi Dmitriy Govoruknin,
> >> >
> >> > It seems there is a lack of volunteers to apply code inspections to our
> >> CI
> >> > & patch submission process. Probably we could come back to your
> >> > initial idea about setting up inspection locally.
> >> >
> >> > Could you commit or share your IDEA inspection settings? I could apply
> >> it
> >> > at least on my machine and remove odd warning types one by one. What do
> >> you
> >> > think?
> >> >
> >> > Sincerely,
> >> > Dmitriy Pavlov
> >> >
> >> > сб, 4 авг. 2018 г. в 1:22, Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]>:
> >> >
> >> > > Ideally, I should not asking for people to solve something for me.
> >> > >
> >> > > I just want this idea did not disappear from our radar.
> >> > >
> >> > > пт, 3 авг. 2018 г. в 23:47, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]
> >> >:
> >> > >
> >> > >> On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 7:49 AM, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> >> [hidden email]>
> >> > >> wrote:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > I understand it is not so Apache-way from my side to ask
> >> volunteers to
> >> > >> do
> >> > >> > some things (instead of contributing it by myself).
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Dmitriy, I am not sure why you feel this is not the Apache way. No
> >> one
> >> > can
> >> > >> do everything themselves.  You should absolutely keep recruiting more
> >> > >> volunteers from the community.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> D.
> >> > >>
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> --
> >> --
> >> Maxim Muzafarov
> >>
> >

[Dmitriy Pavlov]

Hi Pavel,

Thank you for noticing and bringing it here. I've fixed TC failure.

Sincerely,
Dmitriy Pavlov

чт, 16 авг. 2018 г. в 0:10, Pavel Pereslegin <[hidden email]>:

> Hello Igniters.
>
> It seems that "idea/ignite_inspections.xml" should be excluded from
> "check-licenses" maven profile, because "_Licenses Headers_"
> configuration always fails now [1] on TeamCity.
>
> [1]
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_LicensesHeaders&tab=buildTypeHistoryList&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E
> ср, 15 авг. 2018 г. в 20:49, Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > I've updated wiki page
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Coding+Guidelines#CodingGuidelines-C.CodeInspection
> > with
> > reference to settings.xml placement in the project.
> >
> > It is only advice, so I hope you don't mind having this reference.
> >
> > ср, 15 авг. 2018 г. в 16:45, Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > > Hi Maxim,
> > >
> > > Thank you for stepping in. I've committed the first version here
> > > 'idea/ignite_inspections.xml'. We can move it to project default later
> when
> > > all inspection problems are fixed.
> > > Commit:
> > >
> > >
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=ignite.git;a=commit;h=3e0f04edf7cc0aa1631fbd1b9af1e9b87b697eb1
> > >
> > >
> > > Igniters,
> > >
> > > you can enable this profile using the following steps: Inspections
> > > (icon)->Configure inspections->(settings button)->Import
> Profile->select
> > > file and import.
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > >
> > > вт, 14 авг. 2018 г. в 16:31, Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]>:
> > >
> > >> Dmitry and other Igniters,
> > >>
> > >> Previously you has suggested to commit `Code Inspections` into Ignite
> > >> codebase.
> > >> It makes sense for me. I think it's the easiest way to share this
> profile
> > >> among community
> > >> members and this inspection can be set as for the project level.
> > >> So, I suggest:
> > >>
> > >> 1) According to Jetbrains documentation [1] the inspection profile
> can be
> > >> placed to
> > >> `<project>/.idea/inspectionProfiles` with name `Project_Default.xml`
> > >> (hope most of us using IDEA for development)
> > >> This allows enable this profile automatically on per project level and
> > >> will
> > >> simplify
> > >> development process according to rules accepted by our community.
> > >>
> > >> 2) I can file tickets and do some of them to fix inspection failures
> which
> > >> Alexey mentioned
> > >> earlier. Hope other members of community will help me with it.
> > >>
> > >> 3) I think `Inspections (Core)` TeamCity can be triggered as nightly
> build
> > >> as it takes more
> > >> than 4 hours. Suppose, inspection build in each PR is not the best
> way in
> > >> our case. New run
> > >> here [2].
> > >>
> > >> 4) We can tune our MTCGA.Bot to notify members with new inspection
> > >> failures
> > >> added by them.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Also, I've taken Alexey's inspection file as an example, I’ve checked
> what
> > >> we already discussed
> > >> previously (e.g. `Anonymous class can be converted to lambda` should
> be
> > >> disabled by default)
> > >> and added these additional rules to it:
> > >>  - General | Line is longer than allowed by code style
> > >>  - Java | Code maturity | Call to 'printStackTrace()'
> > >>  - Java | Code style issues | Unnecessary 'null' check before
> 'equals()'
> > >> call
> > >>
> > >> If we decide to proceed I will attach this file to JIRA.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> [1] https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/code-inspection.html
> > >> [2]
> > >>
> > >>
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore&tab=buildTypeStatusDiv&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=pull%2F3710%2Fhead
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 at 16:19 Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Hi Dmitriy Govoruknin,
> > >> >
> > >> > It seems there is a lack of volunteers to apply code inspections to
> our
> > >> CI
> > >> > & patch submission process. Probably we could come back to your
> > >> > initial idea about setting up inspection locally.
> > >> >
> > >> > Could you commit or share your IDEA inspection settings? I could
> apply
> > >> it
> > >> > at least on my machine and remove odd warning types one by one.
> What do
> > >> you
> > >> > think?
> > >> >
> > >> > Sincerely,
> > >> > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > >> >
> > >> > сб, 4 авг. 2018 г. в 1:22, Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]>:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Ideally, I should not asking for people to solve something for me.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > I just want this idea did not disappear from our radar.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > пт, 3 авг. 2018 г. в 23:47, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> [hidden email]
> > >> >:
> > >> > >
> > >> > >> On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 7:49 AM, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > >> [hidden email]>
> > >> > >> wrote:
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > I understand it is not so Apache-way from my side to ask
> > >> volunteers to
> > >> > >> do
> > >> > >> > some things (instead of contributing it by myself).
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> Dmitriy, I am not sure why you feel this is not the Apache way.
> No
> > >> one
> > >> > can
> > >> > >> do everything themselves.  You should absolutely keep recruiting
> more
> > >> > >> volunteers from the community.
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> D.
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >> --
> > >> --
> > >> Maxim Muzafarov
> > >>
> > >
>

[Mmuzaf]

Folks,

I think we can make a small step further with Ignite Inspections.

I've created these tickets [1], [2] for myself according to previously
added
`idea/ignite_inspections.xml` and I plan to complete them.

Who will help me with review and merge?

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9311 - Add missing
@Override annotation
[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9312 - Remove unnecessary
@SuppressWarnings annotation

On Thu, 16 Aug 2018 at 19:53 Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Pavel,
>
> Thank you for noticing and bringing it here. I've fixed TC failure.
>
> Sincerely,
> Dmitriy Pavlov
>
> чт, 16 авг. 2018 г. в 0:10, Pavel Pereslegin <[hidden email]>:
>
> > Hello Igniters.
> >
> > It seems that "idea/ignite_inspections.xml" should be excluded from
> > "check-licenses" maven profile, because "_Licenses Headers_"
> > configuration always fails now [1] on TeamCity.
> >
> > [1]
> >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_LicensesHeaders&tab=buildTypeHistoryList&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E
> > ср, 15 авг. 2018 г. в 20:49, Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]>:
> > >
> > > I've updated wiki page
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Coding+Guidelines#CodingGuidelines-C.CodeInspection
> > > with
> > > reference to settings.xml placement in the project.
> > >
> > > It is only advice, so I hope you don't mind having this reference.
> > >
> > > ср, 15 авг. 2018 г. в 16:45, Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]>:
> > >
> > > > Hi Maxim,
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for stepping in. I've committed the first version here
> > > > 'idea/ignite_inspections.xml'. We can move it to project default
> later
> > when
> > > > all inspection problems are fixed.
> > > > Commit:
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=ignite.git;a=commit;h=3e0f04edf7cc0aa1631fbd1b9af1e9b87b697eb1
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Igniters,
> > > >
> > > > you can enable this profile using the following steps: Inspections
> > > > (icon)->Configure inspections->(settings button)->Import
> > Profile->select
> > > > file and import.
> > > >
> > > > Sincerely,
> > > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > >
> > > > вт, 14 авг. 2018 г. в 16:31, Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]>:
> > > >
> > > >> Dmitry and other Igniters,
> > > >>
> > > >> Previously you has suggested to commit `Code Inspections` into
> Ignite
> > > >> codebase.
> > > >> It makes sense for me. I think it's the easiest way to share this
> > profile
> > > >> among community
> > > >> members and this inspection can be set as for the project level.
> > > >> So, I suggest:
> > > >>
> > > >> 1) According to Jetbrains documentation [1] the inspection profile
> > can be
> > > >> placed to
> > > >> `<project>/.idea/inspectionProfiles` with name `Project_Default.xml`
> > > >> (hope most of us using IDEA for development)
> > > >> This allows enable this profile automatically on per project level
> and
> > > >> will
> > > >> simplify
> > > >> development process according to rules accepted by our community.
> > > >>
> > > >> 2) I can file tickets and do some of them to fix inspection failures
> > which
> > > >> Alexey mentioned
> > > >> earlier. Hope other members of community will help me with it.
> > > >>
> > > >> 3) I think `Inspections (Core)` TeamCity can be triggered as nightly
> > build
> > > >> as it takes more
> > > >> than 4 hours. Suppose, inspection build in each PR is not the best
> > way in
> > > >> our case. New run
> > > >> here [2].
> > > >>
> > > >> 4) We can tune our MTCGA.Bot to notify members with new inspection
> > > >> failures
> > > >> added by them.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Also, I've taken Alexey's inspection file as an example, I’ve
> checked
> > what
> > > >> we already discussed
> > > >> previously (e.g. `Anonymous class can be converted to lambda` should
> > be
> > > >> disabled by default)
> > > >> and added these additional rules to it:
> > > >>  - General | Line is longer than allowed by code style
> > > >>  - Java | Code maturity | Call to 'printStackTrace()'
> > > >>  - Java | Code style issues | Unnecessary 'null' check before
> > 'equals()'
> > > >> call
> > > >>
> > > >> If we decide to proceed I will attach this file to JIRA.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> [1] https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/code-inspection.html
> > > >> [2]
> > > >>
> > > >>
> >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore&tab=buildTypeStatusDiv&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=pull%2F3710%2Fhead
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 at 16:19 Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Hi Dmitriy Govoruknin,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > It seems there is a lack of volunteers to apply code inspections
> to
> > our
> > > >> CI
> > > >> > & patch submission process. Probably we could come back to your
> > > >> > initial idea about setting up inspection locally.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Could you commit or share your IDEA inspection settings? I could
> > apply
> > > >> it
> > > >> > at least on my machine and remove odd warning types one by one.
> > What do
> > > >> you
> > > >> > think?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Sincerely,
> > > >> > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > >> >
> > > >> > сб, 4 авг. 2018 г. в 1:22, Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]
> >:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > Ideally, I should not asking for people to solve something for
> me.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > I just want this idea did not disappear from our radar.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > пт, 3 авг. 2018 г. в 23:47, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >> >:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >> On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 7:49 AM, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > >> [hidden email]>
> > > >> > >> wrote:
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> > I understand it is not so Apache-way from my side to ask
> > > >> volunteers to
> > > >> > >> do
> > > >> > >> > some things (instead of contributing it by myself).
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> Dmitriy, I am not sure why you feel this is not the Apache way.
> > No
> > > >> one
> > > >> > can
> > > >> > >> do everything themselves.  You should absolutely keep
> recruiting
> > more
> > > >> > >> volunteers from the community.
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> D.
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >> --
> > > >> --
> > > >> Maxim Muzafarov
> > > >>
> > > >
> >
>

--
--
Maxim Muzafarov

[Dmitriy Pavlov]

IntelliJ Idea shows missing @Override annotation on my installation. Not
sure it comes from our inspection or not.

Anyway, count on me.

пт, 24 авг. 2018 г. в 9:25, Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]>:

> Folks,
>
> I think we can make a small step further with Ignite Inspections.
>
> I've created these tickets [1], [2] for myself according to previously
> added
> `idea/ignite_inspections.xml` and I plan to complete them.
>
> Who will help me with review and merge?
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9311 - Add missing
> @Override annotation
> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9312 - Remove unnecessary
> @SuppressWarnings annotation
>
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2018 at 19:53 Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Hi Pavel,
> >
> > Thank you for noticing and bringing it here. I've fixed TC failure.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Dmitriy Pavlov
> >
> > чт, 16 авг. 2018 г. в 0:10, Pavel Pereslegin <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > > Hello Igniters.
> > >
> > > It seems that "idea/ignite_inspections.xml" should be excluded from
> > > "check-licenses" maven profile, because "_Licenses Headers_"
> > > configuration always fails now [1] on TeamCity.
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_LicensesHeaders&tab=buildTypeHistoryList&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E
> > > ср, 15 авг. 2018 г. в 20:49, Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]>:
> > > >
> > > > I've updated wiki page
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Coding+Guidelines#CodingGuidelines-C.CodeInspection
> > > > with
> > > > reference to settings.xml placement in the project.
> > > >
> > > > It is only advice, so I hope you don't mind having this reference.
> > > >
> > > > ср, 15 авг. 2018 г. в 16:45, Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]>:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Maxim,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you for stepping in. I've committed the first version here
> > > > > 'idea/ignite_inspections.xml'. We can move it to project default
> > later
> > > when
> > > > > all inspection problems are fixed.
> > > > > Commit:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> >
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=ignite.git;a=commit;h=3e0f04edf7cc0aa1631fbd1b9af1e9b87b697eb1
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Igniters,
> > > > >
> > > > > you can enable this profile using the following steps: Inspections
> > > > > (icon)->Configure inspections->(settings button)->Import
> > > Profile->select
> > > > > file and import.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sincerely,
> > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > >
> > > > > вт, 14 авг. 2018 г. в 16:31, Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]>:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Dmitry and other Igniters,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Previously you has suggested to commit `Code Inspections` into
> > Ignite
> > > > >> codebase.
> > > > >> It makes sense for me. I think it's the easiest way to share this
> > > profile
> > > > >> among community
> > > > >> members and this inspection can be set as for the project level.
> > > > >> So, I suggest:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 1) According to Jetbrains documentation [1] the inspection profile
> > > can be
> > > > >> placed to
> > > > >> `<project>/.idea/inspectionProfiles` with name
> `Project_Default.xml`
> > > > >> (hope most of us using IDEA for development)
> > > > >> This allows enable this profile automatically on per project level
> > and
> > > > >> will
> > > > >> simplify
> > > > >> development process according to rules accepted by our community.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 2) I can file tickets and do some of them to fix inspection
> failures
> > > which
> > > > >> Alexey mentioned
> > > > >> earlier. Hope other members of community will help me with it.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 3) I think `Inspections (Core)` TeamCity can be triggered as
> nightly
> > > build
> > > > >> as it takes more
> > > > >> than 4 hours. Suppose, inspection build in each PR is not the best
> > > way in
> > > > >> our case. New run
> > > > >> here [2].
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 4) We can tune our MTCGA.Bot to notify members with new inspection
> > > > >> failures
> > > > >> added by them.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Also, I've taken Alexey's inspection file as an example, I’ve
> > checked
> > > what
> > > > >> we already discussed
> > > > >> previously (e.g. `Anonymous class can be converted to lambda`
> should
> > > be
> > > > >> disabled by default)
> > > > >> and added these additional rules to it:
> > > > >>  - General | Line is longer than allowed by code style
> > > > >>  - Java | Code maturity | Call to 'printStackTrace()'
> > > > >>  - Java | Code style issues | Unnecessary 'null' check before
> > > 'equals()'
> > > > >> call
> > > > >>
> > > > >> If we decide to proceed I will attach this file to JIRA.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> [1] https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/code-inspection.html
> > > > >> [2]
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore&tab=buildTypeStatusDiv&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=pull%2F3710%2Fhead
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 at 16:19 Dmitriy Pavlov <
> [hidden email]>
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Hi Dmitriy Govoruknin,
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > It seems there is a lack of volunteers to apply code inspections
> > to
> > > our
> > > > >> CI
> > > > >> > & patch submission process. Probably we could come back to your
> > > > >> > initial idea about setting up inspection locally.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Could you commit or share your IDEA inspection settings? I could
> > > apply
> > > > >> it
> > > > >> > at least on my machine and remove odd warning types one by one.
> > > What do
> > > > >> you
> > > > >> > think?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Sincerely,
> > > > >> > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > сб, 4 авг. 2018 г. в 1:22, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> [hidden email]
> > >:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > Ideally, I should not asking for people to solve something for
> > me.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > I just want this idea did not disappear from our radar.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > пт, 3 авг. 2018 г. в 23:47, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > >> >:
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 7:49 AM, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > >> [hidden email]>
> > > > >> > >> wrote:
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > I understand it is not so Apache-way from my side to ask
> > > > >> volunteers to
> > > > >> > >> do
> > > > >> > >> > some things (instead of contributing it by myself).
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> Dmitriy, I am not sure why you feel this is not the Apache
> way.
> > > No
> > > > >> one
> > > > >> > can
> > > > >> > >> do everything themselves.  You should absolutely keep
> > recruiting
> > > more
> > > > >> > >> volunteers from the community.
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> D.
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> --
> > > > >> --
> > > > >> Maxim Muzafarov
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > >
> >
> --
> --
> Maxim Muzafarov
>

[Mmuzaf]

Igniters,

I've fixed some issues according to the inspections.xml configuration:
 - `Missorted modifiers`;
 - `'size() == 0' replaceable with 'isEmpty()'`;
 - `Add missing @Override annotation`;
These one have `In progress` state:
 - `Fix unused imports`;
 - `Remove unnecessary @SuppressWarnings annotation`;

The list of issues related to the current Code Inspections changes can be
found [1]
with using label `inspections`. So, to move forward and not lose current
changes I
propose to:
 - Create the new configuration idea\ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml (I
will file a new issue for it);
 - Tune `Inspections: Core` Suite to use this configuration profile (It
will run with each PR);
 - In the case with fixing a new inspection rule enable it this inspection
configuration.

This will allow us to move forward in small steps and at some point of time
in future we will switch
this ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml with the
default ignite_inspections.xml.

Thoughts?
Pert Ivanov, will you help to tune `Inspections: Core` suite?

[1]
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9923?jql=project%20%3D%20Ignite%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20inspections

On Sat, 25 Aug 2018 at 00:54 Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]> wrote:

> IntelliJ Idea shows missing @Override annotation on my installation. Not
> sure it comes from our inspection or not.
>
> Anyway, count on me.
>
> пт, 24 авг. 2018 г. в 9:25, Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]>:
>
> > Folks,
> >
> > I think we can make a small step further with Ignite Inspections.
> >
> > I've created these tickets [1], [2] for myself according to previously
> > added
> > `idea/ignite_inspections.xml` and I plan to complete them.
> >
> > Who will help me with review and merge?
> >
> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9311 - Add missing
> > @Override annotation
> > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9312 - Remove
> unnecessary
> > @SuppressWarnings annotation
> >
> > On Thu, 16 Aug 2018 at 19:53 Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Pavel,
> > >
> > > Thank you for noticing and bringing it here. I've fixed TC failure.
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > >
> > > чт, 16 авг. 2018 г. в 0:10, Pavel Pereslegin <[hidden email]>:
> > >
> > > > Hello Igniters.
> > > >
> > > > It seems that "idea/ignite_inspections.xml" should be excluded from
> > > > "check-licenses" maven profile, because "_Licenses Headers_"
> > > > configuration always fails now [1] on TeamCity.
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_LicensesHeaders&tab=buildTypeHistoryList&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E
> > > > ср, 15 авг. 2018 г. в 20:49, Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]>:
> > > > >
> > > > > I've updated wiki page
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Coding+Guidelines#CodingGuidelines-C.CodeInspection
> > > > > with
> > > > > reference to settings.xml placement in the project.
> > > > >
> > > > > It is only advice, so I hope you don't mind having this reference.
> > > > >
> > > > > ср, 15 авг. 2018 г. в 16:45, Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]
> >:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Maxim,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you for stepping in. I've committed the first version here
> > > > > > 'idea/ignite_inspections.xml'. We can move it to project default
> > > later
> > > > when
> > > > > > all inspection problems are fixed.
> > > > > > Commit:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=ignite.git;a=commit;h=3e0f04edf7cc0aa1631fbd1b9af1e9b87b697eb1
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > you can enable this profile using the following steps:
> Inspections
> > > > > > (icon)->Configure inspections->(settings button)->Import
> > > > Profile->select
> > > > > > file and import.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sincerely,
> > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > >
> > > > > > вт, 14 авг. 2018 г. в 16:31, Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]
> >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Dmitry and other Igniters,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Previously you has suggested to commit `Code Inspections` into
> > > Ignite
> > > > > >> codebase.
> > > > > >> It makes sense for me. I think it's the easiest way to share
> this
> > > > profile
> > > > > >> among community
> > > > > >> members and this inspection can be set as for the project level.
> > > > > >> So, I suggest:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> 1) According to Jetbrains documentation [1] the inspection
> profile
> > > > can be
> > > > > >> placed to
> > > > > >> `<project>/.idea/inspectionProfiles` with name
> > `Project_Default.xml`
> > > > > >> (hope most of us using IDEA for development)
> > > > > >> This allows enable this profile automatically on per project
> level
> > > and
> > > > > >> will
> > > > > >> simplify
> > > > > >> development process according to rules accepted by our
> community.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> 2) I can file tickets and do some of them to fix inspection
> > failures
> > > > which
> > > > > >> Alexey mentioned
> > > > > >> earlier. Hope other members of community will help me with it.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> 3) I think `Inspections (Core)` TeamCity can be triggered as
> > nightly
> > > > build
> > > > > >> as it takes more
> > > > > >> than 4 hours. Suppose, inspection build in each PR is not the
> best
> > > > way in
> > > > > >> our case. New run
> > > > > >> here [2].
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> 4) We can tune our MTCGA.Bot to notify members with new
> inspection
> > > > > >> failures
> > > > > >> added by them.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Also, I've taken Alexey's inspection file as an example, I’ve
> > > checked
> > > > what
> > > > > >> we already discussed
> > > > > >> previously (e.g. `Anonymous class can be converted to lambda`
> > should
> > > > be
> > > > > >> disabled by default)
> > > > > >> and added these additional rules to it:
> > > > > >>  - General | Line is longer than allowed by code style
> > > > > >>  - Java | Code maturity | Call to 'printStackTrace()'
> > > > > >>  - Java | Code style issues | Unnecessary 'null' check before
> > > > 'equals()'
> > > > > >> call
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> If we decide to proceed I will attach this file to JIRA.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> [1] https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/code-inspection.html
> > > > > >> [2]
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore&tab=buildTypeStatusDiv&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=pull%2F3710%2Fhead
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 at 16:19 Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > [hidden email]>
> > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > Hi Dmitriy Govoruknin,
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > It seems there is a lack of volunteers to apply code
> inspections
> > > to
> > > > our
> > > > > >> CI
> > > > > >> > & patch submission process. Probably we could come back to
> your
> > > > > >> > initial idea about setting up inspection locally.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Could you commit or share your IDEA inspection settings? I
> could
> > > > apply
> > > > > >> it
> > > > > >> > at least on my machine and remove odd warning types one by
> one.
> > > > What do
> > > > > >> you
> > > > > >> > think?
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Sincerely,
> > > > > >> > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > сб, 4 авг. 2018 г. в 1:22, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > Ideally, I should not asking for people to solve something
> for
> > > me.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > I just want this idea did not disappear from our radar.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > пт, 3 авг. 2018 г. в 23:47, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >> >:
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >> On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 7:49 AM, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > > >> [hidden email]>
> > > > > >> > >> wrote:
> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > >> > >> > I understand it is not so Apache-way from my side to ask
> > > > > >> volunteers to
> > > > > >> > >> do
> > > > > >> > >> > some things (instead of contributing it by myself).
> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > >> > >> Dmitriy, I am not sure why you feel this is not the Apache
> > way.
> > > > No
> > > > > >> one
> > > > > >> > can
> > > > > >> > >> do everything themselves.  You should absolutely keep
> > > recruiting
> > > > more
> > > > > >> > >> volunteers from the community.
> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > >> > >> D.
> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> --
> > > > > >> --
> > > > > >> Maxim Muzafarov
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > --
> > --
> > Maxim Muzafarov
> >
>

--
--
Maxim Muzafarov

[Nikolay Izhikov-2]

Hello, Maxim.

+1 from me.

I vote to enable static inspections for the Ignite codebase.
Thank you for that contributions!

В Вт, 23/10/2018 в 19:09 +0300, Maxim Muzafarov пишет:

> Igniters,
>
> I've fixed some issues according to the inspections.xml configuration:
>  - `Missorted modifiers`;
>  - `'size() == 0' replaceable with 'isEmpty()'`;
>  - `Add missing @Override annotation`;
> These one have `In progress` state:
>  - `Fix unused imports`;
>  - `Remove unnecessary @SuppressWarnings annotation`;
>
> The list of issues related to the current Code Inspections changes can be
> found [1]
> with using label `inspections`. So, to move forward and not lose current
> changes I
> propose to:
>  - Create the new configuration idea\ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml (I
> will file a new issue for it);
>  - Tune `Inspections: Core` Suite to use this configuration profile (It
> will run with each PR);
>  - In the case with fixing a new inspection rule enable it this inspection
> configuration.
>
> This will allow us to move forward in small steps and at some point of time
> in future we will switch
> this ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml with the
> default ignite_inspections.xml.
>
> Thoughts?
> Pert Ivanov, will you help to tune `Inspections: Core` suite?
>
> [1]
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9923?jql=project%20%3D%20Ignite%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20inspections
>
> On Sat, 25 Aug 2018 at 00:54 Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > IntelliJ Idea shows missing @Override annotation on my installation. Not
> > sure it comes from our inspection or not.
> >
> > Anyway, count on me.
> >
> > пт, 24 авг. 2018 г. в 9:25, Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > > Folks,
> > >
> > > I think we can make a small step further with Ignite Inspections.
> > >
> > > I've created these tickets [1], [2] for myself according to previously
> > > added
> > > `idea/ignite_inspections.xml` and I plan to complete them.
> > >
> > > Who will help me with review and merge?
> > >
> > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9311 - Add missing
> > > @Override annotation
> > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9312 - Remove
> >
> > unnecessary
> > > @SuppressWarnings annotation
> > >
> > > On Thu, 16 Aug 2018 at 19:53 Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]>
> >
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Pavel,
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for noticing and bringing it here. I've fixed TC failure.
> > > >
> > > > Sincerely,
> > > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > >
> > > > чт, 16 авг. 2018 г. в 0:10, Pavel Pereslegin <[hidden email]>:
> > > >
> > > > > Hello Igniters.
> > > > >
> > > > > It seems that "idea/ignite_inspections.xml" should be excluded from
> > > > > "check-licenses" maven profile, because "_Licenses Headers_"
> > > > > configuration always fails now [1] on TeamCity.
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]
> > > > >
> >
> > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_LicensesHeaders&tab=buildTypeHistoryList&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E
> > > > > ср, 15 авг. 2018 г. в 20:49, Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]>:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've updated wiki page
> > > > > >
> >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Coding+Guidelines#CodingGuidelines-C.CodeInspection
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > reference to settings.xml placement in the project.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It is only advice, so I hope you don't mind having this reference.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ср, 15 авг. 2018 г. в 16:45, Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]
> > >
> > > :
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Maxim,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thank you for stepping in. I've committed the first version here
> > > > > > > 'idea/ignite_inspections.xml'. We can move it to project default
> > > >
> > > > later
> > > > > when
> > > > > > > all inspection problems are fixed.
> > > > > > > Commit:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> >
> > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=ignite.git;a=commit;h=3e0f04edf7cc0aa1631fbd1b9af1e9b87b697eb1
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > you can enable this profile using the following steps:
> >
> > Inspections
> > > > > > > (icon)->Configure inspections->(settings button)->Import
> > > > >
> > > > > Profile->select
> > > > > > > file and import.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sincerely,
> > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > вт, 14 авг. 2018 г. в 16:31, Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]
> > >
> > > :
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Dmitry and other Igniters,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Previously you has suggested to commit `Code Inspections` into
> > > >
> > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > codebase.
> > > > > > > > It makes sense for me. I think it's the easiest way to share
> >
> > this
> > > > > profile
> > > > > > > > among community
> > > > > > > > members and this inspection can be set as for the project level.
> > > > > > > > So, I suggest:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 1) According to Jetbrains documentation [1] the inspection
> >
> > profile
> > > > > can be
> > > > > > > > placed to
> > > > > > > > `<project>/.idea/inspectionProfiles` with name
> > >
> > > `Project_Default.xml`
> > > > > > > > (hope most of us using IDEA for development)
> > > > > > > > This allows enable this profile automatically on per project
> >
> > level
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > simplify
> > > > > > > > development process according to rules accepted by our
> >
> > community.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2) I can file tickets and do some of them to fix inspection
> > >
> > > failures
> > > > > which
> > > > > > > > Alexey mentioned
> > > > > > > > earlier. Hope other members of community will help me with it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 3) I think `Inspections (Core)` TeamCity can be triggered as
> > >
> > > nightly
> > > > > build
> > > > > > > > as it takes more
> > > > > > > > than 4 hours. Suppose, inspection build in each PR is not the
> >
> > best
> > > > > way in
> > > > > > > > our case. New run
> > > > > > > > here [2].
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 4) We can tune our MTCGA.Bot to notify members with new
> >
> > inspection
> > > > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > added by them.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Also, I've taken Alexey's inspection file as an example, I’ve
> > > >
> > > > checked
> > > > > what
> > > > > > > > we already discussed
> > > > > > > > previously (e.g. `Anonymous class can be converted to lambda`
> > >
> > > should
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > disabled by default)
> > > > > > > > and added these additional rules to it:
> > > > > > > >  - General | Line is longer than allowed by code style
> > > > > > > >  - Java | Code maturity | Call to 'printStackTrace()'
> > > > > > > >  - Java | Code style issues | Unnecessary 'null' check before
> > > > >
> > > > > 'equals()'
> > > > > > > > call
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If we decide to proceed I will attach this file to JIRA.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [1] https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/code-inspection.html
> > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> >
> > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore&tab=buildTypeStatusDiv&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=pull%2F3710%2Fhead
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 at 16:19 Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > >
> > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi Dmitriy Govoruknin,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It seems there is a lack of volunteers to apply code
> >
> > inspections
> > > > to
> > > > > our
> > > > > > > > CI
> > > > > > > > > & patch submission process. Probably we could come back to
> >
> > your
> > > > > > > > > initial idea about setting up inspection locally.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Could you commit or share your IDEA inspection settings? I
> >
> > could
> > > > > apply
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > at least on my machine and remove odd warning types one by
> >
> > one.
> > > > > What do
> > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > think?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Sincerely,
> > > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > сб, 4 авг. 2018 г. в 1:22, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > >
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > > :
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Ideally, I should not asking for people to solve something
> >
> > for
> > > > me.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I just want this idea did not disappear from our radar.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > пт, 3 авг. 2018 г. в 23:47, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > > > >
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 7:49 AM, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I understand it is not so Apache-way from my side to ask
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > volunteers to
> > > > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > > > > some things (instead of contributing it by myself).
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, I am not sure why you feel this is not the Apache
> > >
> > > way.
> > > > > No
> > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > do everything themselves.  You should absolutely keep
> > > >
> > > > recruiting
> > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > volunteers from the community.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > D.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Maxim Muzafarov
> > > > > > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > --
> > > Maxim Muzafarov
> > >

[Mmuzaf]

Igniters,

The new `Inspections: Core` suite [2] configured on TeamCity (pass
successfully with - Inspections total: 0, errors: 0 ).
The next rules are enabled for this suite:
 - `Missorted modifiers`;
 - `'size() == 0' replaceable with 'isEmpty()'`;
 - `Add missing @Override annotation`;
 - `Fix unused imports`;

Let's incule it to the `Run::All` group on TC, so we will check these rules
automatically for each PR.
Any objections?


Talking about the details,

- the issue [1] with adding an inspections configuration for TC have PA
status;
- the new configuration ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml added to PR;
- four rules which are already fixed in the master branch enabled in config;
- the `Inspections:Core` suite configured to use the inspections
configuration from the local branch;
- the example `how to use inspections from the command line` added.


Petr, Nikolay,

Thank you for your support!

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9983
[2]
https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=pull%2F5059%2Fhead&tab=buildTypeStatusDiv
[3]
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9983?focusedCommentId=16662323&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-16662323

On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 at 19:16 Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hello, Maxim.
>
> +1 from me.
>
> I vote to enable static inspections for the Ignite codebase.
> Thank you for that contributions!
>
> В Вт, 23/10/2018 в 19:09 +0300, Maxim Muzafarov пишет:
> > Igniters,
> >
> > I've fixed some issues according to the inspections.xml configuration:
> >  - `Missorted modifiers`;
> >  - `'size() == 0' replaceable with 'isEmpty()'`;
> >  - `Add missing @Override annotation`;
> > These one have `In progress` state:
> >  - `Fix unused imports`;
> >  - `Remove unnecessary @SuppressWarnings annotation`;
> >
> > The list of issues related to the current Code Inspections changes can be
> > found [1]
> > with using label `inspections`. So, to move forward and not lose current
> > changes I
> > propose to:
> >  - Create the new configuration idea\ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml (I
> > will file a new issue for it);
> >  - Tune `Inspections: Core` Suite to use this configuration profile (It
> > will run with each PR);
> >  - In the case with fixing a new inspection rule enable it this
> inspection
> > configuration.
> >
> > This will allow us to move forward in small steps and at some point of
> time
> > in future we will switch
> > this ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml with the
> > default ignite_inspections.xml.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> > Pert Ivanov, will you help to tune `Inspections: Core` suite?
> >
> > [1]
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9923?jql=project%20%3D%20Ignite%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20inspections
> >
> > On Sat, 25 Aug 2018 at 00:54 Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > IntelliJ Idea shows missing @Override annotation on my installation.
> Not
> > > sure it comes from our inspection or not.
> > >
> > > Anyway, count on me.
> > >
> > > пт, 24 авг. 2018 г. в 9:25, Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]>:
> > >
> > > > Folks,
> > > >
> > > > I think we can make a small step further with Ignite Inspections.
> > > >
> > > > I've created these tickets [1], [2] for myself according to
> previously
> > > > added
> > > > `idea/ignite_inspections.xml` and I plan to complete them.
> > > >
> > > > Who will help me with review and merge?
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9311 - Add missing
> > > > @Override annotation
> > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9312 - Remove
> > >
> > > unnecessary
> > > > @SuppressWarnings annotation
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 16 Aug 2018 at 19:53 Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]>
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Pavel,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you for noticing and bringing it here. I've fixed TC failure.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sincerely,
> > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > >
> > > > > чт, 16 авг. 2018 г. в 0:10, Pavel Pereslegin <[hidden email]>:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hello Igniters.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It seems that "idea/ignite_inspections.xml" should be excluded
> from
> > > > > > "check-licenses" maven profile, because "_Licenses Headers_"
> > > > > > configuration always fails now [1] on TeamCity.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1]
> > > > > >
> > >
> > >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_LicensesHeaders&tab=buildTypeHistoryList&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E
> > > > > > ср, 15 авг. 2018 г. в 20:49, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've updated wiki page
> > > > > > >
> > >
> > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Coding+Guidelines#CodingGuidelines-C.CodeInspection
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > reference to settings.xml placement in the project.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It is only advice, so I hope you don't mind having this
> reference.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ср, 15 авг. 2018 г. в 16:45, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> [hidden email]
> > > >
> > > > :
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Maxim,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thank you for stepping in. I've committed the first version
> here
> > > > > > > > 'idea/ignite_inspections.xml'. We can move it to project
> default
> > > > >
> > > > > later
> > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > all inspection problems are fixed.
> > > > > > > > Commit:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > >
> > >
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=ignite.git;a=commit;h=3e0f04edf7cc0aa1631fbd1b9af1e9b87b697eb1
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > you can enable this profile using the following steps:
> > >
> > > Inspections
> > > > > > > > (icon)->Configure inspections->(settings button)->Import
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Profile->select
> > > > > > > > file and import.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Sincerely,
> > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > вт, 14 авг. 2018 г. в 16:31, Maxim Muzafarov <
> [hidden email]
> > > >
> > > > :
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Dmitry and other Igniters,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Previously you has suggested to commit `Code Inspections`
> into
> > > > >
> > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > codebase.
> > > > > > > > > It makes sense for me. I think it's the easiest way to
> share
> > >
> > > this
> > > > > > profile
> > > > > > > > > among community
> > > > > > > > > members and this inspection can be set as for the project
> level.
> > > > > > > > > So, I suggest:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 1) According to Jetbrains documentation [1] the inspection
> > >
> > > profile
> > > > > > can be
> > > > > > > > > placed to
> > > > > > > > > `<project>/.idea/inspectionProfiles` with name
> > > >
> > > > `Project_Default.xml`
> > > > > > > > > (hope most of us using IDEA for development)
> > > > > > > > > This allows enable this profile automatically on per
> project
> > >
> > > level
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > simplify
> > > > > > > > > development process according to rules accepted by our
> > >
> > > community.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 2) I can file tickets and do some of them to fix inspection
> > > >
> > > > failures
> > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > Alexey mentioned
> > > > > > > > > earlier. Hope other members of community will help me with
> it.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 3) I think `Inspections (Core)` TeamCity can be triggered
> as
> > > >
> > > > nightly
> > > > > > build
> > > > > > > > > as it takes more
> > > > > > > > > than 4 hours. Suppose, inspection build in each PR is not
> the
> > >
> > > best
> > > > > > way in
> > > > > > > > > our case. New run
> > > > > > > > > here [2].
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 4) We can tune our MTCGA.Bot to notify members with new
> > >
> > > inspection
> > > > > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > > added by them.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Also, I've taken Alexey's inspection file as an example,
> I’ve
> > > > >
> > > > > checked
> > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > we already discussed
> > > > > > > > > previously (e.g. `Anonymous class can be converted to
> lambda`
> > > >
> > > > should
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > disabled by default)
> > > > > > > > > and added these additional rules to it:
> > > > > > > > >  - General | Line is longer than allowed by code style
> > > > > > > > >  - Java | Code maturity | Call to 'printStackTrace()'
> > > > > > > > >  - Java | Code style issues | Unnecessary 'null' check
> before
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 'equals()'
> > > > > > > > > call
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If we decide to proceed I will attach this file to JIRA.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [1]
> https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/code-inspection.html
> > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > >
> > >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore&tab=buildTypeStatusDiv&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=pull%2F3710%2Fhead
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 at 16:19 Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > >
> > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi Dmitriy Govoruknin,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > It seems there is a lack of volunteers to apply code
> > >
> > > inspections
> > > > > to
> > > > > > our
> > > > > > > > > CI
> > > > > > > > > > & patch submission process. Probably we could come back
> to
> > >
> > > your
> > > > > > > > > > initial idea about setting up inspection locally.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Could you commit or share your IDEA inspection settings?
> I
> > >
> > > could
> > > > > > apply
> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > at least on my machine and remove odd warning types one
> by
> > >
> > > one.
> > > > > > What do
> > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > think?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Sincerely,
> > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > сб, 4 авг. 2018 г. в 1:22, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > >
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Ideally, I should not asking for people to solve
> something
> > >
> > > for
> > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I just want this idea did not disappear from our radar.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > пт, 3 авг. 2018 г. в 23:47, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 7:49 AM, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I understand it is not so Apache-way from my side
> to ask
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > volunteers to
> > > > > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > some things (instead of contributing it by myself).
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, I am not sure why you feel this is not the
> Apache
> > > >
> > > > way.
> > > > > > No
> > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > do everything themselves.  You should absolutely keep
> > > > >
> > > > > recruiting
> > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > volunteers from the community.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > D.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Maxim Muzafarov
> > > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > --
> > > > Maxim Muzafarov
> > > >
>

--
--
Maxim Muzafarov

[Nikolay Izhikov-2]

Hello, Maxim.

Great job! Thank you!
Igniters, let's add this suite to the Run All!

It can help us improve code quality and check code style without human eyes.


В Пт, 26/10/2018 в 00:47 +0300, Maxim Muzafarov пишет:

> Igniters,
>
> The new `Inspections: Core` suite [2] configured on TeamCity (pass
> successfully with - Inspections total: 0, errors: 0 ).
> The next rules are enabled for this suite:
>  - `Missorted modifiers`;
>  - `'size() == 0' replaceable with 'isEmpty()'`;
>  - `Add missing @Override annotation`;
>  - `Fix unused imports`;
>
> Let's incule it to the `Run::All` group on TC, so we will check these rules
> automatically for each PR.
> Any objections?
>
>
> Talking about the details,
>
> - the issue [1] with adding an inspections configuration for TC have PA
> status;
> - the new configuration ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml added to PR;
> - four rules which are already fixed in the master branch enabled in config;
> - the `Inspections:Core` suite configured to use the inspections
> configuration from the local branch;
> - the example `how to use inspections from the command line` added.
>
>
> Petr, Nikolay,
>
> Thank you for your support!
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9983
> [2]
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=pull%2F5059%2Fhead&tab=buildTypeStatusDiv
> [3]
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9983?focusedCommentId=16662323&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-16662323
>
> On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 at 19:16 Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Hello, Maxim.
> >
> > +1 from me.
> >
> > I vote to enable static inspections for the Ignite codebase.
> > Thank you for that contributions!
> >
> > В Вт, 23/10/2018 в 19:09 +0300, Maxim Muzafarov пишет:
> > > Igniters,
> > >
> > > I've fixed some issues according to the inspections.xml configuration:
> > >  - `Missorted modifiers`;
> > >  - `'size() == 0' replaceable with 'isEmpty()'`;
> > >  - `Add missing @Override annotation`;
> > > These one have `In progress` state:
> > >  - `Fix unused imports`;
> > >  - `Remove unnecessary @SuppressWarnings annotation`;
> > >
> > > The list of issues related to the current Code Inspections changes can be
> > > found [1]
> > > with using label `inspections`. So, to move forward and not lose current
> > > changes I
> > > propose to:
> > >  - Create the new configuration idea\ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml (I
> > > will file a new issue for it);
> > >  - Tune `Inspections: Core` Suite to use this configuration profile (It
> > > will run with each PR);
> > >  - In the case with fixing a new inspection rule enable it this
> >
> > inspection
> > > configuration.
> > >
> > > This will allow us to move forward in small steps and at some point of
> >
> > time
> > > in future we will switch
> > > this ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml with the
> > > default ignite_inspections.xml.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > > Pert Ivanov, will you help to tune `Inspections: Core` suite?
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9923?jql=project%20%3D%20Ignite%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20inspections
> > >
> > > On Sat, 25 Aug 2018 at 00:54 Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]>
> >
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > IntelliJ Idea shows missing @Override annotation on my installation.
> >
> > Not
> > > > sure it comes from our inspection or not.
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, count on me.
> > > >
> > > > пт, 24 авг. 2018 г. в 9:25, Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]>:
> > > >
> > > > > Folks,
> > > > >
> > > > > I think we can make a small step further with Ignite Inspections.
> > > > >
> > > > > I've created these tickets [1], [2] for myself according to
> >
> > previously
> > > > > added
> > > > > `idea/ignite_inspections.xml` and I plan to complete them.
> > > > >
> > > > > Who will help me with review and merge?
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9311 - Add missing
> > > > > @Override annotation
> > > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9312 - Remove
> > > >
> > > > unnecessary
> > > > > @SuppressWarnings annotation
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 16 Aug 2018 at 19:53 Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]>
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Pavel,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you for noticing and bringing it here. I've fixed TC failure.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sincerely,
> > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > >
> > > > > > чт, 16 авг. 2018 г. в 0:10, Pavel Pereslegin <[hidden email]>:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hello Igniters.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It seems that "idea/ignite_inspections.xml" should be excluded
> >
> > from
> > > > > > > "check-licenses" maven profile, because "_Licenses Headers_"
> > > > > > > configuration always fails now [1] on TeamCity.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_LicensesHeaders&tab=buildTypeHistoryList&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E
> > > > > > > ср, 15 авг. 2018 г. в 20:49, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> >
> > [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I've updated wiki page
> > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Coding+Guidelines#CodingGuidelines-C.CodeInspection
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > reference to settings.xml placement in the project.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It is only advice, so I hope you don't mind having this
> >
> > reference.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ср, 15 авг. 2018 г. в 16:45, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> >
> > [hidden email]
> > > > >
> > > > > :
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi Maxim,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thank you for stepping in. I've committed the first version
> >
> > here
> > > > > > > > > 'idea/ignite_inspections.xml'. We can move it to project
> >
> > default
> > > > > >
> > > > > > later
> > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > all inspection problems are fixed.
> > > > > > > > > Commit:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=ignite.git;a=commit;h=3e0f04edf7cc0aa1631fbd1b9af1e9b87b697eb1
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > you can enable this profile using the following steps:
> > > >
> > > > Inspections
> > > > > > > > > (icon)->Configure inspections->(settings button)->Import
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Profile->select
> > > > > > > > > file and import.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Sincerely,
> > > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > вт, 14 авг. 2018 г. в 16:31, Maxim Muzafarov <
> >
> > [hidden email]
> > > > >
> > > > > :
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Dmitry and other Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Previously you has suggested to commit `Code Inspections`
> >
> > into
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > codebase.
> > > > > > > > > > It makes sense for me. I think it's the easiest way to
> >
> > share
> > > >
> > > > this
> > > > > > > profile
> > > > > > > > > > among community
> > > > > > > > > > members and this inspection can be set as for the project
> >
> > level.
> > > > > > > > > > So, I suggest:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 1) According to Jetbrains documentation [1] the inspection
> > > >
> > > > profile
> > > > > > > can be
> > > > > > > > > > placed to
> > > > > > > > > > `<project>/.idea/inspectionProfiles` with name
> > > > >
> > > > > `Project_Default.xml`
> > > > > > > > > > (hope most of us using IDEA for development)
> > > > > > > > > > This allows enable this profile automatically on per
> >
> > project
> > > >
> > > > level
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > simplify
> > > > > > > > > > development process according to rules accepted by our
> > > >
> > > > community.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 2) I can file tickets and do some of them to fix inspection
> > > > >
> > > > > failures
> > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > Alexey mentioned
> > > > > > > > > > earlier. Hope other members of community will help me with
> >
> > it.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 3) I think `Inspections (Core)` TeamCity can be triggered
> >
> > as
> > > > >
> > > > > nightly
> > > > > > > build
> > > > > > > > > > as it takes more
> > > > > > > > > > than 4 hours. Suppose, inspection build in each PR is not
> >
> > the
> > > >
> > > > best
> > > > > > > way in
> > > > > > > > > > our case. New run
> > > > > > > > > > here [2].
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 4) We can tune our MTCGA.Bot to notify members with new
> > > >
> > > > inspection
> > > > > > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > > > added by them.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Also, I've taken Alexey's inspection file as an example,
> >
> > I’ve
> > > > > >
> > > > > > checked
> > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > we already discussed
> > > > > > > > > > previously (e.g. `Anonymous class can be converted to
> >
> > lambda`
> > > > >
> > > > > should
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > disabled by default)
> > > > > > > > > > and added these additional rules to it:
> > > > > > > > > >  - General | Line is longer than allowed by code style
> > > > > > > > > >  - Java | Code maturity | Call to 'printStackTrace()'
> > > > > > > > > >  - Java | Code style issues | Unnecessary 'null' check
> >
> > before
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 'equals()'
> > > > > > > > > > call
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > If we decide to proceed I will attach this file to JIRA.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > [1]
> >
> > https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/code-inspection.html
> > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore&tab=buildTypeStatusDiv&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=pull%2F3710%2Fhead
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 at 16:19 Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > >
> > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Dmitriy Govoruknin,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > It seems there is a lack of volunteers to apply code
> > > >
> > > > inspections
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > our
> > > > > > > > > > CI
> > > > > > > > > > > & patch submission process. Probably we could come back
> >
> > to
> > > >
> > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > initial idea about setting up inspection locally.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Could you commit or share your IDEA inspection settings?
> >
> > I
> > > >
> > > > could
> > > > > > > apply
> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > at least on my machine and remove odd warning types one
> >
> > by
> > > >
> > > > one.
> > > > > > > What do
> > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > think?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely,
> > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > сб, 4 авг. 2018 г. в 1:22, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > >
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Ideally, I should not asking for people to solve
> >
> > something
> > > >
> > > > for
> > > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I just want this idea did not disappear from our radar.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > пт, 3 авг. 2018 г. в 23:47, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 7:49 AM, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I understand it is not so Apache-way from my side
> >
> > to ask
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > volunteers to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > some things (instead of contributing it by myself).
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, I am not sure why you feel this is not the
> >
> > Apache
> > > > >
> > > > > way.
> > > > > > > No
> > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > do everything themselves.  You should absolutely keep
> > > > > >
> > > > > > recruiting
> > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > volunteers from the community.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > D.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > Maxim Muzafarov
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > --
> > > > > Maxim Muzafarov
> > > > >