On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 3:45 PM Bharath Vissapragada <bhara...@apache.org> wrote:
> I share the same opinion. Infact hadoop (from which our annotations are > derived I believe), talks about this, "Also, certain APIs are annotated as > @VisibleForTesting (from com.google.common .annotations.VisibleForTesting) > - these are meant to be used strictly for unit tests and should be treated > as “Private” APIs." > > > https://hadoop.apache.org/docs/r3.1.2/hadoop-project-dist/hadoop-common/InterfaceClassification.html > Sorry Bharath, I don't follow. Are you saying "I share the opinion that the VisibleForTesting annotation should be considered as defining a method as IA.Private," and this is an omission from our community guidelines document? Or are you saying "no, it does not count as an interface audience marker," and we are obliged to treat methods such as in this example as public API? Thanks, Nick On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 10:15 AM Sean Busbey <bus...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Yeah I would say no as well. We should make clear on our dev guide that > you > > also should be marking those things with an Interface Audience marking if > > you don't intend them to be at the downstream API visibility of the > parent > > class. > > > > (IIRC we also use VisibleForTesting in IA.Private classes to proactively > > explain why some internal looking member is at a wider Java access > scope.) > > > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020, 11:39 Nick Dimiduk <ndimi...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > This came up over on the 2.3.0RC0 thread, so let's open it for proper > > > discussion. In that context, we observe method signature changes to a > > > method marked with the Guava VisibleForTesting annotation. The method > is > > a > > > protected method on a IA.Public class. There is no method-level IA > > > annotation. > > > > > > Do we consider the VisibleForTesting annotation as a specifier for our > > > compatibility guidelines? > > > > > > I am of the opinion that no, it is not an InterfaceAudience annotation, > > and > > > so it is not applicable for defining our public API. > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Nick > > > > > >
