Do you have an estimate for long these tests would run for?
For project-wide tests, what are the options for setting that up?
If we let the tests run per-module then I guess they'd overlap
considerably (because other Flink modules are being put on the
classpath), which isn't ideal.
On 06/09/2021 13:51, David Morávek wrote:
Hi Ingo,
+1 for this effort. This could automate lot of "written rules" that are
easy to forget about / not to be aware of (such as that each test should
extend the TestLogger as Till has already mentioned).
I went trough your examples and ArchUnit looks really powerful and
expressive while still being easy to read.
Best,
D.
On Mon, Sep 6, 2021 at 1:00 PM Ingo Bürk <i...@ververica.com> wrote:
Thanks for your input Chesnay!
The limitations of ArchUnit probably mostly stem from the fact that it
operates on byte code and thus can't access anything not accessible from
byte code, i.e. JavaDocs. But I think Checkstyle and ArchUnit are
complementing each other quite well here. The main reason against
Checkstyle for these tests is its limitation to single files only,
rendering many tests (including the one you mentioned) impossible. The
secondary reason is that ArchUnit has more declarative APIs and the tests
become quite easy to write and maintain (some groundwork effort is needed,
of course). Over time we could probably expand quite a bit more on what is
tested with ArchUnit as it can test entire architectures (package accesses
etc.), and it has support for "freezing" known violations to prevent new
violations and removing existing ones over time.
The @VisibleForTesting use case you mentioned is possible; I've pushed a
version of that rule to the draft PR now as well.
Best
Ingo
On Mon, Sep 6, 2021 at 12:11 PM Chesnay Schepler <ches...@apache.org>
wrote:
This sounds like an interesting effort.
The draft you have opened uses ArchUnit; can you explain a bit what the
capabilities/limitations of said tool are?
One thing we wanted to have for a long time is that methods/classes
annotated with @VisibleForTesting are not called from production code;
would that be something that could be implemented?
It's not a problem imo that tests need to run in order to catch stuff;
so long as it is noticed on CI.
On 03/09/2021 08:48, Ingo Bürk wrote:
Hi Timo, Till,
thanks for your input already. I'm glad to hear that the idea
resonates,
also thanks for the additional ideas!
I've created a JIRA issue[1] for now just to track this idea. I'm also
working on a bit of a proof of concept and opened it as a draft PR[2].
I'm
happy for anyone to join that PR to look and discuss. The PR doesn't
necessarily intend to be merged in its current state, but is rather for
evaluation.
Meanwhile I'm also collecting ideas in a Google Doc, so if anyone wants
to
suggest more use cases to explore or implement, please let me know.
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-24138
[2] https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/17133
Best
Ingo
On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 12:31 PM Till Rohrmann <trohrm...@apache.org>
wrote:
If it is possible to automate these kinds of checks, then I am all for
it
because everything else breaks eventually. So +1 for this proposal.
I don't have experience with what tools are available, though.
I would like to add a rule that every test class extends directly or
indirectly TestLogger because otherwise it is super hard to make sense
of
the test logs (Arvid will probably chime in stating that this will be
solved with Junit5 eventually).
Not sure whether this is possible or not but if we can check that all
interfaces have properly defined JavaDocs on each method, then this
could
also be helpful in my opinion.
Cheers,
Till
On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 11:16 AM Timo Walther <twal...@apache.org>
wrote:
Hi Ingo,
thanks for starting this discussion. Having more automation is
definitely desirable. Esp. in the API / SDK areas where we frequently
have to add similar comments to PRs. The more checks the better. We
definitely also need more guidelines (e.g. how to develop a Flink
connector) but automation is safer then long checklists that might be
out of date quickly.
+1 to the proposal. I don't have an opinion on the tool though.
Regards,
Timo
On 01.09.21 11:03, Ingo Bürk wrote:
Hello everyone,
I would like to start a discussion on introducing automated tests
for
more
architectural rather than stilistic topics. For example, here are a
few
things that seem worth checking to me (this is Table-API-focused
since
it
is the subsystem I'm involved in):
(a) All classes in o.a.f.table.api should be annotated with one
of @Internal, @PublicEvolving, or @Public.
(b) Classes whose name ends in *ConnectorOptions should be located
in
o.a.f.connector.*.table
(c) Classes implementing DynamicSourceFactory / DynamicSinkFactory
should
have no static members of type ConfigOption
There are probably significantly more cases worth checking, and also
more
involved ones (these are rather simple examples), like disallowing
access
between certain packages etc. There are two questions I would like
to
ask
to the community:
(1) Do you think such tests are useful in general?
(2) What use cases come to mind for you?
If the idea finds consensus, I would like to use (2) to investigate
which
tooling to use. An obvious candidate is Checkstyle, as this is
already
used. It also has the advantage of being well integrated in the IDE.
However, it is limited to looking at single files only, and custom
checks
are pretty complicated and involved to implement[1]. Another
possible
tool
is ArchUnit[2], which would be significantly easier to maintain and
is
more
powerful, but in turn requires tests to be executed. If you have
further
suggestions (or thoughts) they would of course also be quite
welcome,
though for now I would focus on (1) and (2) and go from there to
evaluate.
[1] https://checkstyle.sourceforge.io/writingchecks.html
[2] https://www.archunit.org/
Best
Ingo
