Technically, I do not think the developer who makes a field or method public for an IA.Public class but marks it with @VisibleForTesting, actually wants to expose this field or method to end users. But this could be a problem for end users, so I think we should avoid doing this on an IA.Public class in the future.
For the current problem, what is the class? I think changing a method signature for a protected method will only break the compatibility when users extend the class. In fact, most of the classes in our public API are not designed to be extended by end users. Thanks. Wellington Chevreuil <wellington.chevre...@gmail.com> 于2020年6月23日周二 下午10:33写道： > My opinion expressed on the 2.3.0RC0 thread was that @VisibleForTesting > would flag class/method/variable as private. I believe the annotation label > is pretty suggestive and (I also believe) it's common sense that it should > be treated as private by developers. I don't think the fact it's > omitted from our guidelines changes perception of it. > > Em ter., 23 de jun. de 2020 às 01:15, Bharath Vissapragada < > bhara...@apache.org> escreveu: > > > Sorry, I should've been clearer. It's the former. My point is, any method > > tagged with @VisibleForTesting is only intended for testing purposes and > > should _not_ be considered public, its visibility scope is wider than > > necessary only because it was needed by some test method. That's how I'd > > interpret it (Actually, that's what I thought you meant, now I'm confused > > :-)). > > > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 4:02 PM Nick Dimiduk <ndimi...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
