This appears to be forcing us to set javadoc on constructors as well, which is usually pointless. Can we exclude constructor methods from this check?
On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 5:40 PM Ruoyun Huang <[email protected]> wrote: > Our recent change is on "JavaDocMethod", which not turned on yet. Not > relevant to this error here. > > The one throws error is "javaDocType". it has been there for a while > <https://github.com/apache/beam/blame/master/sdks/java/build-tools/src/main/resources/beam/checkstyle.xml#L156>, > which is for public class javadoc missing. Yeah, I am curious as well why > preCommit didn't catch this one. > > > > On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 5:28 PM Alex Amato <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Did their happen to be a short time window where some missing Javadoc >> comments went in? I am now seeing precommit fail due to code I didn't >> modify. >> >> >> https://scans.gradle.com/s/nwgb7xegklwqo/console-log?task=:beam-runners-direct-java:checkstyleMain >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 2:34 PM Ruoyun Huang <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Trying to understand your suggestion. By saying "break that dependency", >>> do you mean moving checkstyle out of Java PreCommit? >>> >>> currently we do have checkstyle as part of ":check". It seems to me >>> "check" does minimal amount of essential works (correct me If I am wrong), >>> much less than what PreCommit does. >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 12:20 PM Kenneth Knowles <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> It is always a bummer when the Java PreCommit fails due to style >>>> checking. Can we get this to run separately and quicker? I notice it >>>> depends on compileJava. I cannot remember why that is, but I recall it is a >>>> legitimate reason. Nonetheless, can we break that dependency somehow? >>>> >>>> Kenn >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 6:42 PM Ruoyun Huang <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, everyone, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> To make sure we move forward to a clean state where we catch >>>>> violations in any new PR, we created this change: >>>>> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/7532 >>>>> >>>>> This PR makes checkstyle to report error on missing javadocs. For >>>>> existing violations, we explicitly added them as suppression rules, down >>>>> to >>>>> which line in the code. >>>>> >>>>> The caveat is, once this PR is merged, whoever make update to any file >>>>> in the list, will very likely have to fix the existing violation for that >>>>> file. :-) Hope this sounds like a reasonable idea to move forward. >>>>> >>>>> In the meanwhile, I will try to address the items in the list (if I >>>>> can). And over time, I will get back to this and remove those suppressions >>>>> no longer needed (created JIRA-6446 for tracking purpose), until all >>>>> of them are fixed. >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 10:57 PM Ruoyun Huang <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> created a PR: https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/7454 >>>>>> >>>>>> Note instead of having separated checkstyle specs for Main versus >>>>>> Test, this PR simply uses suppression to turn off JavaDocComment for test >>>>>> files. >>>>>> >>>>>> If this PR draft looks good, then next step I will commit another >>>>>> change that: >>>>>> 1) throw error on violations (now just warning to keep PR green). >>>>>> 2) List all the violations explicitly in a suppression list, and let >>>>>> area contributors/owners address and chop things off the list over time. >>>>>> Not ideal and quite some manual work, if there is a better way, please >>>>>> let >>>>>> me know. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 7:29 AM Robert Bradshaw <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 11:15 PM Kenneth Knowles <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > I think @Internal would be a reasonable annotation to exempt from >>>>>>> documentation, as that means it is explicitly *not* part of the actual >>>>>>> public API, as Ismaël alluded to. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We'll probably want a distinct annotation from that. Forced comments, >>>>>>> especially forced-by-an-impartial-metric ones, are often lower >>>>>>> quality. This is the kind of signal that would be useful to surface >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> a reviewer who could then (jointly) make the call rather than it >>>>>>> being >>>>>>> a binary failure/success. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > (I'm still on the docs-on-private-too side of things, but realize >>>>>>> that's an extreme position) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> +1 to docs on private things as well, though maybe with not as high >>>>>>> priority :). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > It is a shame that we chose blacklist (via @Internal) instead of >>>>>>> whitelist (via e.g. @Public) for what constitutes an actual supported >>>>>>> public method. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Probably better than having to re-train others that public doesn't >>>>>>> really mean public unless it has a @Public on it. It's harder to >>>>>>> "unknowingly" use an @Internal API. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > Kenn >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 1:46 PM Ruoyun Huang <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> To Ismael's question: When applying such a check (i.e. public >>>>>>> method with >30 Loc), our code base shows in total 115 violations. >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> Thanks for the feedback everyone. As some of you mentioned >>>>>>> already, suppress warning is always available whenever >>>>>>> contributor/reviewer >>>>>>> feels appropriate, instead of been forced to put in low quality >>>>>>> comments. >>>>>>> This check is more about to help us avoid human errors, in those cases >>>>>>> we >>>>>>> do want to add meaningful javadocs. >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> With 5 +1s so far. I will put together a PR draft. A bit >>>>>>> research is still needed regarding the best practise to apply check to >>>>>>> Main/Test in a different way. If anyone has experience on it, please >>>>>>> share >>>>>>> it with me. >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 8:19 AM Ismaël Mejía <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> -0 >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> Same comments than Robert I am particularly worried on how this >>>>>>> affect >>>>>>> >>> contributors in particular casual ones. Even if the intended >>>>>>> idea is >>>>>>> >>> good I am also worried that people just write poor comments to >>>>>>> get rid >>>>>>> >>> of the annoyance. >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> Have you already estimated how hard is the current codebase >>>>>>> impacted? >>>>>>> >>> Or how many methods will be needed to document before this gets >>>>>>> in >>>>>>> >>> place? >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> I wouldn't be surprised if many runners or internal parts of the >>>>>>> >>> codebase lack comments on public methods considering that the >>>>>>> 'public >>>>>>> >>> API' of must runners 'is not' the public methods but the specific >>>>>>> >>> PipelineOptions, and for some methods (even longer ones) such >>>>>>> comments >>>>>>> >>> may be trivial. >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 5:16 PM Kenneth Knowles <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> >>> > +1 I even thought this was already on (at some point). >>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> >>> > On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 8:01 AM Scott Wegner <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>> >>> >> I would even propose applying this to non-public methods, but >>>>>>> I suspect that would be more controversial. >>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> >>> > I also would support this. It will improve code quality as >>>>>>> well. Often missing doc means something is not well thought-out. It >>>>>>> often >>>>>>> also indicates a misguided attempt to "share code" without sharing a >>>>>>> clear >>>>>>> concept. >>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> >>> >> I share Robert's concern for random victims hitting the >>>>>>> policy when a method grows from N-1 to N lines. This can easily happen >>>>>>> with >>>>>>> automatic refactoring + spotless code formatting. For example, renaming >>>>>>> a >>>>>>> variable to a longer name can introduce new line-breaks. But, I'm think >>>>>>> code documentation is valuable enough that it's still worth it. >>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> >>> > Another perspective is that someone is getting away with >>>>>>> missing documentation at N-1. Seems OK. But maybe just >>>>>>> allowMissingPropertyJavadoc (from >>>>>>> http://checkstyle.sourceforge.net/config_javadoc.html#JavadocMethod)? >>>>>>> We can also configure allowedAnnotations but if you are going to go >>>>>>> through >>>>>>> the trouble of annotating something, a javadoc comment is just as easy. >>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> >>> > I want to caveat this: I am strongly opposed to any >>>>>>> requirements on the contents of the javadoc, which is almost all the >>>>>>> time >>>>>>> redundant bloat if the description is at all adequate. >>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> >>> > Kenn >>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>> >>> >> On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 4:03 AM Robert Bradshaw < >>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>> With the clarification that we're looking at the >>>>>>> intersection of >>>>>>> >>> >>> public + "big", I think this is a great idea. We should make >>>>>>> it clear >>>>>>> >>> >>> that this is a lower bar--many private or shorter methods >>>>>>> merit >>>>>>> >>> >>> documentation as well (but that's harder to automatically >>>>>>> detect). The >>>>>>> >>> >>> one difficulty with a threshold is that it's painful for the >>>>>>> person >>>>>>> >>> >>> who does some refactoring or other minor work and turns the >>>>>>> (say) >>>>>>> >>> >>> 29-line method into a 30-line one. This is a case where as >>>>>>> suppression >>>>>>> >>> >>> annotation (appropriately used) could be useful. >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 1:49 AM Daniel Oliveira < >>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>> >>> > >>>>>>> >>> >>> > +1 >>>>>>> >>> >>> > >>>>>>> >>> >>> > I like this idea, especially with the line number >>>>>>> requirement. The exact number of lines is debatable, but you could go as >>>>>>> low as 10 lines and that would exclude any trivial setters and getters. >>>>>>> Even better might be if it's possible to configure checkstyle to ignore >>>>>>> this for getters and setters (I don't know if checkstyle supports this, >>>>>>> but >>>>>>> I know that other tools are able to auto-detect getters and setters). >>>>>>> >>> >>> > >>>>>>> >>> >>> > I'm not dead-set against having annotation to suppress the >>>>>>> comment, but it carries the risk that code will be left un-commented >>>>>>> because both the dev and reviewer think it's self-explanatory, and then >>>>>>> someone new to the codebase finds it confusing. >>>>>>> >>> >>> > >>>>>>> >>> >>> > On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 11:31 AM Ankur Goenka < >>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>> >>> >> >>>>>>> >>> >>> >> I think it makes sense. >>>>>>> >>> >>> >> Having an annotation to suppress this check for a >>>>>>> method/class instead of adding trivial comment would be useful. >>>>>>> >>> >>> >> >>>>>>> >>> >>> >> On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 9:53 AM Ruoyun Huang < >>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>> Yeah. Agree there is no reason to enforce anything for >>>>>>> trivial methods like setter/getter. >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>> What I meant is to enforce only for a method that is >>>>>>> BOTH 1) public method 2) has longer than N lines. >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>> sorry for not making the proposal clear enough in the >>>>>>> original message, it should've better titled "enforce ... on non-trivial >>>>>>> public methods". >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 1:31 AM Robert Bradshaw < >>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>>> IMHO, requiring comments on trivial methods like >>>>>>> setters and getters >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>>> is often a net negative, but setting some standard >>>>>>> could be useful. >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>>> On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 7:35 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < >>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>>> > >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>>> > Hi, >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>>> > >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>>> > for the presence of a comment on public method, it's >>>>>>> a good idea. Now, >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>>> > about the number of lines, not sure it's a good idea. >>>>>>> I'm thinking about >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>>> > the getter/setter which are public. Most of the time, >>>>>>> the comment is >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>>> > pretty simple (and useless ;)). >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>>> > >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>>> > Regards >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>>> > JB >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>>> > >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>>> > On 07/01/2019 04:35, Ruoyun Huang wrote: >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>>> > > Hi, everyone, >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>>> > > >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>>> > > >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>>> > > We were wondering whether it is a good idea to >>>>>>> make checkstyle >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>>> > > enforce public method comments. Our current >>>>>>> behavior of JavaDoc check is: >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>>> > > >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>>> > > 1. >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>>> > > >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>>> > > Missing Class javadoc comment is reported as >>>>>>> error. >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>>> > > >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>>> > > 2. >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>>> > > >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>>> > > Method comment missing is explicitly allowed. >>>>>>> see [1]. It is not >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>>> > > even shown as warning. >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>>> > > >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>>> > > 3. >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>>> > > >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>>> > > The actual javadoc target gives warning when >>>>>>> certain tags are >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>>> > > missing in javadoc, but not if the whole >>>>>>> comment is missing. >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>>> > > >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>>> > > >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>>> > > How about we enforce method comments for **1) >>>>>>> public method and 2) >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>>> > > method that is longer than N lines**. (N=~30 seems >>>>>>> a good number, >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>>> > > leading to ~50 violations in current repository). I >>>>>>> can find out the >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>>> > > corresponding contributors to fill in the missing >>>>>>> comments, before we >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>>> > > turning the check fully on. >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>>> > > >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>>> > > >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>>> > > One caveat though is that we might want skip >>>>>>> this check on test code, >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>>> > > but I am not sure yet if our current setup can >>>>>>> easily handle separated >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>>> > > rules for main code versus test code. >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>>> > > >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>>> > > >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>>> > > Is this a good idea? Thoughts and suggestions? >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>>> > > >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>>> > > >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>>> > > [1] >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>>> > > >>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/beam/blame/5ceffb246c0c38ad68dd208e951a1f39c90ef85c/sdks/java/build-tools/src/main/resources/beam/checkstyle.xml#L111 >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>>> > > >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>>> > > >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>>> > > Cheers, >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>>> > > >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>>> > >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>>> > -- >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>>> > Jean-Baptiste Onofré >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>>> > [email protected] >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>>> > http://blog.nanthrax.net >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>>> > Talend - http://www.talend.com >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>> ================ >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>> Ruoyun Huang >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>> >>> >> -- >>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>> >>> >> Got feedback? tinyurl.com/swegner-feedback >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> -- >>>>>>> >> ================ >>>>>>> >> Ruoyun Huang >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> ================ >>>>>> Ruoyun Huang >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> ================ >>>>> Ruoyun Huang >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> -- >>> ================ >>> Ruoyun Huang >>> >>> > > -- > ================ > Ruoyun Huang > >
