Agree! Here I'm just responding to clarify and reiterate, since the threading might appear as though I am the "you" in "the extra minutes you want to add here will cost me an hour daily" and "you can see where I stand and why" but I don't hold that opinion of that "you". I have said many of the same things as Dan previously (and I'm the one who separated slow stuff back in the day).
So is there a path to improve it further? Kenn On Feb 10, 2017 9:28 AM, "Aljoscha Krettek" <aljos...@apache.org> wrote: I'm with Dan on this. The iteration time should be cut down as low as possible and we have Jenkins to ensure that tests pass. As a side note, there are IntelliJ plugins for Checkstyle and Findbugs and my personal setup highlights Checkstyle violations as errors in the code so I can immediately see them and fix them. I'll chat you up about this! I have both plugins but have not found a satisfactory way of surfacing the things to fix with low latency or immediately. Kenn On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 at 17:45 Dan Halperin <dhalp...@google.com.invalid> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Kenneth Knowles <k...@google.com.invalid> > wrote: > > > On Feb 10, 2017 07:36, "Dan Halperin" <dhalp...@google.com.invalid> > wrote: > > > > Before we added checkstyle it was under a minute. Now it's over five? > > That's awful IMO > > > > > > Checkstyle didn't cause all that, did it? > > > > The "5 minutes" was going with Aviem's numbers after this change. But yes, > Checkstyle alone substantially (>+50%) the time from what it was previously > to adding it back to the default build. > > Noting that findbugs takes quite a lot more time. Javadoc and jar are the > > other two slow ones. > > > > RAT is fast. But it has very poor error messages, so we wouldn't want a > new > > contributor trying to figure out what is going on without our help. > > > > There is a larger philosophical issue here: is there a point of Jenkins > precommit testing? Why not just make `mvn install` run everything that > Jenkins does? For that matter, why don't committers just push directly to > master? Wouldn't that make everyone's life easier? > > I'd argue that's not true. > > 1. Developer productivity -- Jenkins should run many more checks than > developers do. Especially time-, resource-, or setup- intensive tasks. > 2. Automated enforcement -- Jenkins is better at running the right commands > than we are. > 3. Lower the barrier to entry -- individual developers need not have a > running Spark/Flink/Apex/Dataflow setup in order to contribute code. > 4. Focus on the user -- someone checking out the code and using it for the > first time does not care whether the code style checks or has the right > licenses -- that should have been enforced by the Beam team before > committing. > > We should be *very* choosy about what we enforce on every developer every > time they go to compile. I probably compile Beam 50x-100x a day. Literally, >. > > I've listed the fraction of commits I think will break one of the following > if that property is not tested: > > * compiling (100%) > * tests (100%) > * checkstyle (90%) > * javadoc (30%) > * findbugs (5%) > * rat (1%) > > So . I'm sorry that 1/20 PRs has Apache > RAT catch a licensing issue or Findbugs catch a threading issue -- you can > always get a larger set of the precommit checks using -Prelease, though of > course the integration tests and runnableonservice tests may catch more > issues still. But I want my developer minutes back for the 95%+ of the > rest. > > Dan > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 07:14 Aviem Zur <aviem...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Opened JIRA ticket: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-1457 > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 4:54 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Yeah. Agree. Time extend is not huge and it's worth to add it in > verify > > > > phase. > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > JB > > > > > > > > On Feb 10, 2017, 10:13, at 10:13, Aviem Zur <aviem...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > >This goes back to the original discussion in this thread - reduce > the > > > > >amount of things pull requesters should know and keep the maven > > command > > > > >in > > > > >the PR checklist as: 'mvn clean verify'. > > > > > > > > > >So if rat and findbugs do not take that long to run I think they > > should > > > > >be > > > > >run by 'mvn clean verify' > > > > > > > > > >I ran a quick test on my laptop to see how much time they add to the > > > > >build > > > > >(of the entire project): > > > > > > > > > >'mvn clean install -DskipTests' => Total time: 03:51 min > > > > >'mvn clean install apache-rat:check findbugs:check -DskipTests' => > > > > >Total > > > > >time: 05:29 min (Added 01:38 min) > > > > >'mvn clean install' => Total time: 09:37 min > > > > >'mvn clean install apache-rat:check findbugs:check' => Total time: > > > > >11:13 > > > > >min (Added 01:36 min) > > > > > > > > > >Are these times reasonable enough to add rat and findbugs to the > > > > >default > > > > >build? > > > > > > > > > >On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 1:55 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > j...@nanthrax.net > > > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Hi > > > > >> > > > > >> We discussed about that at the beginning of the project. We agreed > > to > > > > >> execute rat and findbugs in a specific profile to reduce the build > > > > >time for > > > > >> dev. > > > > >> > > > > >> That's why I do mvn clean install -Prelease before submitting a PR > > > > >and > > > > >> just clean install when I'm developing. > > > > >> > > > > >> No problem to change that. > > > > >> > > > > >> Regards > > > > >> JB > > > > >> > > > > >> On Feb 10, 2017, 07:51, at 07:51, Aviem Zur <aviem...@gmail.com> > > > > >wrote: > > > > >> >Can we consider adding rat-plugin and findbugs to the default > > verify > > > > >> >phase? > > > > >> >Currently they only run when the `release` profile is enabled. > > > > >> > > > > > >> >On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:42 AM Aljoscha Krettek > > > > ><aljos...@apache.org> > > > > >> >wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> +1 to what Dan said > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 at 21:40 Kenneth Knowles > > > > ><k...@google.com.invalid> > > > > >> >> wrote: > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > +1 > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > On Jan 25, 2017 11:15, "Jean-Baptiste Onofré" < > j...@nanthrax.net > > > > > > > >> >wrote: > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > +1 > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > It sounds good to me. > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > Thanks Dan ! > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > Regards > > > > >> >> > > JB > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > On Jan 25, 2017, 19:39, at 19:39, Dan Halperin > > > > >> >> > <dhalp...@google.com.INVALID> > > > > >> >> > > wrote: > > > > >> >> > > >Here is my summary of the threads: > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >Overwhelming agreement: > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >- rename `release` to something more appropriate. > > > > >> >> > > >- add `checkstyle` to the default build (it's basically a > > > > >> >compile > > > > >> >> > > >error) > > > > >> >> > > >- add more information to contributor guide > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >Reasonable agreement > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >- don't update the github instructions to make passing > `mvn > > > > >> >verify > > > > >> >> > > >-P<all > > > > >> >> > > >checks>` mandatory. Maybe add a hint that this is a good > > > > >proxy > > > > >> >for > > > > >> >> what > > > > >> >> > > >Jenkins will run. > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >Unresolved: > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >- whether all checks should be in `mvn verify` > > > > >> >> > > >- whether `mvn test` is useful for most workflows > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >I'll propose to proceed with the overwhelmingly > agreed-upon > > > > >> >changes, > > > > >> >> > > >and as > > > > >> >> > > >we see increasingly many new contributors re-evaluate the > > > > >> >remaining > > > > >> >> > > >issues. > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >Thanks, > > > > >> >> > > >Dan > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 12:51 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré > > > > >> >> > > ><j...@nanthrax.net> > > > > >> >> > > >wrote: > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> +1 to at least update the contribution guide and improve > > > > >the > > > > >> >profile > > > > >> >> > > >name. > > > > >> >> > > >> > > > > >> >> > > >> Regards > > > > >> >> > > >> JB > > > > >> >> > > >> > > > > >> >> > > >> > > > > >> >> > > >> On 01/24/2017 09:49 PM, Kenneth Knowles wrote: > > > > >> >> > > >> > > > > >> >> > > >>> My impression is that we don't have consensus on > whether > > > > >all > > > > >> >checks > > > > >> >> > > >or > > > > >> >> > > >>> minimal checks should be the default, or whether we can > > > > >have > > > > >> >both > > > > >> >> > > >via `mvn > > > > >> >> > > >>> test` and `mvn verify`. > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > >> >> > > >>> But that doesn't prevent us from giving -P release a > > > > >better > > > > >> >name > > > > >> >> and > > > > >> >> > > >>> mentioning it in the dev guide and in some manner in > our > > > > >PR > > > > >> >> > > >template. > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > >> >> > > >>> Right now we are living with the combination of the bad > > > > >> >aspects - > > > > >> >> > > >default > > > > >> >> > > >>> is not thorough but not actually fast and a thorough > > check > > > > >is > > > > >> >> > > >>> undocumented. > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > >> >> > > >>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 2:22 AM, Ismaël Mejía > > > > >> ><ieme...@gmail.com> > > > > >> >> > > >wrote: > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > >> >> > > >>> I just wanted to know if we have achieved some > consensus > > > > >> >about > > > > >> >> this, > > > > >> >> > > >I > > > > >> >> > > >>>> just > > > > >> >> > > >>>> saw this PR that reminded me about this discussion. > > > > >> >> > > >>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/1829 > > > > >> >> > > >>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> It is important that we mention the existing profiles > > > > >(and > > > > >> >the > > > > >> >> > > >intended > > > > >> >> > > >>>> checks) in the contribution guide (e.g. -Prelease (or > > > > >> >-Pall-checks > > > > >> >> > > >>>> triggers > > > > >> >> > > >>>> these validations). > > > > >> >> > > >>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> I can add this to the guide if you like once we define > > > > >the > > > > >> >checks > > > > >> >> > > >per > > > > >> >> > > >>>> stage/profile. > > > > >> >> > > >>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> Ismaël > > > > >> >> > > >>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 8:12 AM, Aviem Zur > > > > >> ><aviem...@gmail.com> > > > > >> >> > > >wrote: > > > > >> >> > > >>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> I agree with Dan and Lukasz. > > > > >> >> > > >>>>> Developers should not be expected to know beforehand > > > > >which > > > > >> >> > > >specific > > > > >> >> > > >>>>> profiles to run. > > > > >> >> > > >>>>> The phase specified in the PR instructions (`verify`) > > > > >> >should run > > > > >> >> > > >all the > > > > >> >> > > >>>>> relevant verifications and be the "slower" build, > while > > > > >a > > > > >> >> > > >preceding > > > > >> >> > > >>>>> lifecycle, such as `test`, should run the "faster" > > > > >> >verifications. > > > > >> >> > > >>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>> Aviem. > > > > >> >> > > >>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>> On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 7:57 PM Robert Bradshaw > > > > >> >> > > >>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> <rober...@google.com.invalid > > > > >> >> > > >>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> wrote: > > > > >> >> > > >>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>> On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 3:49 AM, Aljoscha Krettek > > > > >> >> > > ><aljos...@apache.org> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> wrote: > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>> I also usually prefer "mvn verify" to to the > expected > > > > >> >thing but > > > > >> >> > > >I see > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> that > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>> quick iteration times are key. > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> I see > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> https://maven.apache.org/guides/introduction/ > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>> introduction-to-the-lifecycle.html > > > > >> >> > > >>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> verify - run any checks on results of > integration > > > > >> >tests to > > > > >> >> > > >ensure > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> quality criteria are met > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> Of course our integration tests are long enough that > > we > > > > >> >> shouldn't > > > > >> >> > > >be > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> putting all of them here, but I too would expect > > > > >> >checkstyle. > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> Perhaps we could introduce a verify-fast or somesuch > > > > >for > > > > >> >fast > > > > >> >> > > >(but > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> lower coverage) turnaround time. I would expect "mvn > > > > >> >verify > > > > >> >> test" > > > > >> >> > > >to > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> pass before submitting a PR, and would want to run > > that > > > > >> >before > > > > >> >> > > >asking > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> others to look at it. I think this should be our > > > > >criteria > > > > >> >(i.e. > > > > >> >> > > >what > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> will a new but maven-savvy user run before pushing > > > > >their > > > > >> >code). > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> As long as the pre-commit hooks still check > everything > > > > >I'm > > > > >> >ok > > > > >> >> > > >with > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> making > > > > >> >> > > >>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> the default a little more lightweight. > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> The fact that our pre-commit hooks take a long time > to > > > > >run > > > > >> >does > > > > >> >> > > >change > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> things. Nothing more annoying than seeing that your > PR > > > > >> >failed 3 > > > > >> >> > > >hours > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> later because you had some trailing whitespace... > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> On Thu, 5 Jan 2017 at 21:49 Lukasz Cwik > > > > >> >> > > ><lc...@google.com.invalid> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> wrote: > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>> I was hoping that the default mvn verify would be > the > > > > >> >slow > > > > >> >> build > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>> and a > > > > >> >> > > >>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>> profile could be enabled that would skip checks to > make > > > > >> >things > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>> faster > > > > >> >> > > >>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>> for > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>> regular contributors. This way a person doesn't > need > > > > >to > > > > >> >have > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>> detailed > > > > >> >> > > >>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>> knowledge of all our profiles and what they do > > > > >(typically > > > > >> >mvn > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>> verify) > > > > >> >> > > >>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>> will > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>> do the right thing most of the time. > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Dan Halperin > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>> <dhalp...@google.com.invalid> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>> wrote: > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 9:28 AM, Jesse Anderson < > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>> je...@smokinghand.com > > > > >> >> > > >>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>> wrote: > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> @dan are you saying that mvn verify isn't doing > > > > >> >checkstyle > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> anymore? > > > > >> >> > > >>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> `mvn verify` alone should not be running > > checkstyle, > > > > >if > > > > >> >> > > >modules > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>> are > > > > >> >> > > >>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>> configured correctly. > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> Some of > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> the checkstyles are still running for a few > > > > >modules. > > > > >> >Also, > > > > >> >> > > >the > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> contribution > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> docs will need to change. > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> Yes. The PR includes discussion of these other > > > > >needed > > > > >> >> changes, > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> unfortunately one PR can't change two > repositories. > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> Please continue the discussion on the PR, then I > > > > >will > > > > >> >> > > >summarize it > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>> back > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>> into the dev thread. > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> Thanks, > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> Dan > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> They say to run mvn verify before commits. > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 9:25 AM Dan Halperin > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> <dhalp...@google.com.invalid > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> Several folks seem to have been confused after > > > > >> >BEAM-246, > > > > >> >> > > >where > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> we > > > > >> >> > > >>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> moved > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> the > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> "slow things" into the release profile. I've > > > > >started > > > > >> >a > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> discussion > > > > >> >> > > >>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> with > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/1740 to see > if > > > > >> >there are > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> things > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>> we > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> can > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> do to fill these gaps. > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Would love folks to chime in with opinions. > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Dan > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Jesse Anderson > < > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> je...@smokinghand.com> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> @Eugene, yes that failed on the checkstyle. > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 1:27 PM Eugene > Kirpichov > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> <kirpic...@google.com.invalid> wrote: > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Try just -Prelease. > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 1:21 PM Jesse > Anderson < > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> je...@smokinghand.com > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Fails because I don't have a secret key. > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 1:03 PM Jean-Baptiste > > > > >> >Onofré < > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> j...@nanthrax.net > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Jesse, > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you try the same with: > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mvn verify -Prelease,apache-release > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JB > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 01/04/2017 09:53 PM, Jesse Anderson > wrote: > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For some reason, running "mvn verify" > isn't > > > > >> >running > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checkstyle > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> on > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> everything. I had checkstyle errors in > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beam-sdks-java-core > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>> that > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> weren't > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> being found. > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought this was due to the extra > > > > >parameters. > > > > >> >I > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reran > > > > >> >> > > >>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> with > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> the > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> plain > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "mvn > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> verify" and it still didn't find them. > From > > > > >the > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> output, > > > > >> >> > > >>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> it > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>> doesn't > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> look > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> like they're being run at all. > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jesse > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jbono...@apache.org > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > >> >> > > >> -- > > > > >> >> > > >> Jean-Baptiste Onofré > > > > >> >> > > >> jbono...@apache.org > > > > >> >> > > >> http://blog.nanthrax.net > > > > >> >> > > >> Talend - http://www.talend.com > > > > >> >> > > >> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
