Code inspection
Locked
1234
... 6
1234
... 6
 
|
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> |
|
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] >: > 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> > |
|
|
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.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] > > : > > 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> > > |
signature.asc (465 bytes) |
|
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]> 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. > 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] > > > : > > > 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> > > > > |
|
We can use Sonar as instrument for code analysis and test coverage inspections.
> On 6 Mar 2018, at 11:28, Dmitriy Govorukhin <[hidden email]> 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]> > 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. >> 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] >>>> : >>>> 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> >>>> >> |
|
|
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]>: > We can use Sonar as instrument for code analysis and test coverage > inspections. > > > > > On 6 Mar 2018, at 11:28, Dmitriy Govorukhin < > [hidden email]> 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]> > > 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. > >> 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] > >>>> : > >>>> 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> > >>>> > >> > > |
|
|
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]>: > 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]>: > > > We can use Sonar as instrument for code analysis and test coverage > > inspections. > > > > > > > > > On 6 Mar 2018, at 11:28, Dmitriy Govorukhin < > > [hidden email]> 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]> > > > 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. > > >> 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] > > >>>> : > > >>>> 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> > > >>>> > > >> > > > > > |
|
|
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]> 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]>: > >> 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]>: >> >>> We can use Sonar as instrument for code analysis and test coverage >>> inspections. >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 6 Mar 2018, at 11:28, Dmitriy Govorukhin < >>> [hidden email]> 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]> >>>> 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. >>>>> 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] >>>>>>> : >>>>>>> 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> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >> |
|
Can we use also Sonar for codestyle (may be some additional code checks)
checks on each PR? вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 13:42, Petr Ivanov <[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]> 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] > >: > > > >> 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]>: > >> > >>> We can use Sonar as instrument for code analysis and test coverage > >>> inspections. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> On 6 Mar 2018, at 11:28, Dmitriy Govorukhin < > >>> [hidden email]> 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] > > > >>>> 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. > >>>>> 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] > >>>>>>> : > >>>>>>> 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> > >>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by vveider
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]>: > 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]> 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] > >: > > > >> 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]>: > >> > >>> We can use Sonar as instrument for code analysis and test coverage > >>> inspections. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> On 6 Mar 2018, at 11:28, Dmitriy Govorukhin < > >>> [hidden email]> 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] > > > >>>> 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. > >>>>> 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] > >>>>>>> : > >>>>>>> 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> > >>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > |
|
|
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]>: > 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]>: > >> 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]> 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]>: >> > >> >> 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]>: >> >> >> >>> We can use Sonar as instrument for code analysis and test coverage >> >>> inspections. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>> On 6 Mar 2018, at 11:28, Dmitriy Govorukhin < >> >>> [hidden email]> 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]> >> >>>> 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. >> >>>>> 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] >> >>>>>>> : >> >>>>>>> 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> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> |
|
|
Hi Dmitriy,
would you pick up this activity? Sincerely, Dmitriy Pavlov вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 14:09, Dmitry Pavlov <[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]>: > >> 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]>: >> >>> 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]> 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]>: >>> > >>> >> 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]>: >>> >> >>> >>> We can use Sonar as instrument for code analysis and test coverage >>> >>> inspections. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 6 Mar 2018, at 11:28, Dmitriy Govorukhin < >>> >>> [hidden email]> 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]> >>> >>>> 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. >>> >>>>> 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] >>> >>>>>>> : >>> >>>>>>> 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> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> |
|
|
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 пн, 12 мар. 2018 г. в 14:37, Dmitry Pavlov <[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]>: > >> 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]>: >> >>> 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]>: >>> >>>> 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]> 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]>: >>>> > >>>> >> 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]>: >>>> >> >>>> >>> We can use Sonar as instrument for code analysis and test coverage >>>> >>> inspections. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> On 6 Mar 2018, at 11:28, Dmitriy Govorukhin < >>>> >>> [hidden email]> 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]> >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>>> 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] >>>> >>>>>>> : >>>> >>>>>>> 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> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> |
|
|
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:[hidden email]>> 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:[hidden email]> > >>>>>>> : > >>>>>>> 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>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > |
|
|
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/ |
|
|
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:[hidden email]>> >> 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:[hidden email]> > > >> > >>>>>>> : >> > >>>>>>> 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>> >> > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >> >> > >> >> > |
|
|
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 ? 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:[hidden email]>> >>> 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:[hidden email] >>> > >> >> >>> > >>>>>>> : >>> > >>>>>>> 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>> >>> > >>>>>>> >>> > >>>>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >> >>> > >>> >>> >> |
|
|
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]> 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 > ? > > 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:[hidden email]>> >>>> 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:[hidden email] >>>>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> : >>>>>>>>>>>> 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>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> |
|
|
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:[hidden email]>> >>>>> 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:[hidden email] >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> : >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> > |
|
|
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>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > > > > |
«
Return to Apache Ignite Developers - Legacy Mail Archive
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |