It would be very useful to have line and/or branch coverage visible. These are both very weak proxies for quality or reliability, so IMO strict thresholds are not helpful. One thing that is super useful is to integrate line coverage into code review, like this: https://docs.codecov.io/docs/browser-extension. It is very easy to notice major missing tests.
We have never really used Sonarqube. It was turned on as a possibility in the early days but never worked on past that point. Could be nice. I suspect there's a lot to be gained by just finding very low numbers and improving them. So just running Jacoco's offline HTML generation would do it (also this integrates with Jenkins). I tried this the other day and discovered that our gradle config is broken and does not wire tests and coverage reporting together properly. Last thing: How is "technical debt" measured? I'm skeptical of quantitative measures for qualitative notions. Kenn On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 1:58 PM Heejong Lee <heej...@google.com> wrote: > I don't have any experience of using SonarQube but Coverity worked well > for me. Looks like it already has beam repo: > https://scan.coverity.com/projects/11881 > > On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 1:27 PM Reuven Lax <re...@google.com> wrote: > >> checkstyle and findbugs are already run as precommit checks, are they not? >> >> On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 7:19 PM Mikhail Gryzykhin <mig...@google.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> In our current builds we (can) run multiple code quality checks tools >>> like checkstyle, findbugs, code test coverage via cubertura. However we do >>> not utilize many of those signals. >>> >>> I suggest to add requirements to code based on those tools. >>> Specifically, I suggest to add pre-commit checks that will require PRs to >>> conform to some quality checks. >>> >>> We can see good example of thresholds to add at Apache SonarQube >>> provided default quality gate config >>> <https://builds.apache.org/analysis/quality_gates/show/1>: >>> 80% tests coverage on new code, >>> 5% technical technical debt on new code, >>> No bugs/Vulnerabilities added. >>> >>> As another part of this proposal, I want to suggest the use of SonarQube >>> for tracking code statistics and as agent for enforcing code quality >>> thresholds. It is Apache provided tool that has integration with Jenkins or >>> Gradle via plugins. >>> >>> I believe some reporting to SonarQube was configured for mvn builds of >>> some of Beam sub-projects, but was lost during migration to gradle. >>> >>> I was looking for other options, but so far found only general configs >>> to gradle builds that will fail build if code coverage for project is too >>> low. Such approach will force us to backfill tests for all existing code >>> that can be tedious and demand learning of all legacy code that might not >>> be part of current work. >>> >>> I suggest to discuss and come to conclusion on two points in this tread: >>> 1. Do we want to add code quality checks to our pre-commit jobs and >>> require them to pass before PR is merged? >>> >>> Suggested: Add code quality checks listed above at first, adjust them as >>> we see fit in the future. >>> >>> 2. What tools do we want to utilize for analyzing code quality? >>> >>> Under discussion. Suggested: SonarQube, but will depend on functionality >>> level we want to achieve. >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> --Mikhail >>> >>
