> In accord I added an opt-out for each hook, and will require such here as well On for main branches, off for feature branches seems like it might blanket satisfy this concern? Doesn't fix the "--atomic across 5 branches means style checks and build on hook across those branches" which isn't ideal. I don't think style check failures after push upstream are frequent enough to make the cost/benefit there make sense overall are they?
Related to this - I have sonarlint, spotbugs, and checkstyle all running inside idea; since pulling those in and tuning the configs a bit I haven't run into a single issue w/our checkstyle build target (go figure). Having the required style checks reflected realtime inside your work environment goes a long way towards making it a more intuitive part of your workflow rather than being an annoying last minute block of your ability to progress that requires circling back into the code. >From a technical perspective, it looks like adding a reference >"externalDependencies.xml" to our ide/idea directory which we copied over >during "generate-idea-files" would be sufficient to get idea to pop up prompts >to install those extensions if you don't have them when opening the project >(theory; haven't tested). We'd need to make sure the configuration for each of those was calibrated to our project out of the box of course, but making style considerations a first-class citizen in that way seems a more intuitive and human-centered approach to all this rather than debating nuance of our command-line targets, hooks, and how we present things to people. To Berenguer's point - better to have these be completely invisible to people with their workflows and Just Work (except for when your IDE scolds you for bad behavior w/build errors immediately). I still think Flags Are Bad. :) On Thu, Jun 29, 2023, at 1:38 PM, Ekaterina Dimitrova wrote: > Should we just keep a consolidated for all kind of checks no-check flag and > get rid of the no-checkstyle one? > > Trading one for one with Josh :-) > > Best regards, > Ekaterina > > On Thu, 29 Jun 2023 at 10:52, Josh McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> wrote: >> __ >>> I really prefer separate tasks than flags. Flags are not listed in the help >>> message like "ant -p" and are not auto-completed in the terminal. That >>> makes them almost undiscoverable for newcomers. >> Please, no more flags. We are *more* than flaggy enough right now. >> >> Having to dig through build.xml to determine how to change things or do >> things is painful; the more we can avoid this (for oldtimers and newcomers >> alike!) the better. >> >> On Thu, Jun 29, 2023, at 8:34 AM, Mick Semb Wever wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Thu, 29 Jun 2023 at 13:30, Jacek Lewandowski >>> <lewandowski.ja...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> There is another target called "build", which retrieves dependencies, and >>>> then calls "build-project". >>> >>> >>> Is it intended to be called by a user ? >>> >>> If not, please follow the ant style prefixing the target name with an >>> underscore (so that it does not appear in the `ant -projecthelp` list). >>> >>> If possible, I agree with Brandon, `build` is the better name to expose to >>> the user. >>
