Let me summarize and answer main question that I see: 1. Seems that we do want to have some statistics on coverage and integrate automatic requirements into our build system. 2. Implementation is still to be discussed.
Lets talk about implementation further. My requirements for choice are: 1. Tool should give us an option for deep-dive into findings. 2. Tool should keep history of reports. 3. Tool should give an option to break build (allow for hardcoded requirements) 4. Tool should encorporate code coverage and static analysis reports. (Or more if applicable) 5. Tool should support most or all languages we utilize in beam. Let me dive into SonarQube a bit first. (All up to my understanding of how it works.) Hits most of the points, potentially with some tweaks. This tool relies on reports generated by common tools. It also tracks history of builds and allows to navigate it. Multi language. I'm still working on figuring out how to configure it though. Common thresholds/checks that are suggested by SonarQube: Many checks are possible to apply to new code only. This allows not to fix legacy code, but keep all new additions clean and neat (ish). Test coverage by line/branch: Relies on cubertura report. Usually coverage by branch is suggested. (all "if" case lines should be tested with positive and negative condition result) Method complexity: Amount of different paths/conditions that method can be invoked with. Suggested max number is 15. Generally describes how easy it is to test/understand method. Bugs/vulnerabilities: Generally, output of Findbug. Reflects commonly vulnerable/dangerous code that might cause errors. Or just errors in code. I believe that sonar allows for custom code analysis as well, but that is not required. Technical debt: estimations on how much time will it take to cleanup code to make it shiny. Includes code duplications, commented code, not following naming conventions, long methods, ifs that can be inverted, public methods that can be private, etc. I'm not familiar with explicit list, but on my experience suggestions are usually relevant. More on metrics can be found here: https://docs.sonarqube.org/latest/user-guide/metric-definitions/ Suggested alternatives: https://scan.coverity.com/ This tool looks great and I'll check more on it. But it has a restriction to 14 or 7 builds per week (not sure how will they estimate our project). Also, I'm not sure if we can break pre-commit based on report from coverity. Looks good for generating historical data. https://docs.codecov.io/docs/browser-extension I'll check more on this one. Looks great to have it integrated in PRs. Although it requires plugin installation by each developer. I don't think it allows to break builds and only does coverage. Am I correct? Regards, --Mikhail Have feedback <http://go/migryz-feedback>? On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 2:18 PM Kenneth Knowles <k...@apache.org> wrote: > 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 >>>> >>>
