Also to be clear, I don't have any objections with the steps outlined. so +1 on the depreciation schedule.
On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 11:43 AM Bharath Vissapragada <bhara...@apache.org> wrote: > +1 on standardization using I.A rather than guava annotations. > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 11:30 AM Nick Dimiduk <ndimi...@apache.org> wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 3:19 PM Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> >> > It is possible some users may not understand what Guava's >> VisibleForTesting >> > implies, but those users are much more likely to be Java developers or >> Java >> > developer adjacent, and familiar with what this fad entailed. Such >> tagging >> > was/is done specifically to indicate the exposed field or method was >> only >> > made to allow test access to internals, as something less than public. >> > >> > For us to treat such annotated fields and methods as public after all is >> > unnecessary, possibly surprising, and not semantically sound (IMHO). >> > >> >> I don't want to preserve use of VisibleForTesting as an indicator of >> public >> API. I want to ensure that we're clear to our downstream users >> that its presence is not a factor in determining public API. For example, >> I >> don't want to update our book to give any meaning to this annotation, and >> I >> don't want to update our javadoc filters to take it into account when >> generating the various versions of javadoc that we publish. I want to >> purge >> it from the discussion by annotating the methods it decorates with the >> symbols we do use to define our public API. The steps I propose above are >> my suggestion of how we work toward that goal. >> >> Does anyone have a counter-proposal to the steps I've outlined above? A >> resolution to this discussion is now the final blocker on 2.3.0rc1. >> >> Thanks, >> Nick >> >> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 2:53 PM Sean Busbey <bus...@apache.org> wrote: >> > >> > > Andrew are you specifically opposed to using a deprecation cycle to >> > > formally label as private anything that currently has a >> VisibleForTesting >> > > annotation? >> > > >> > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020, 16:07 Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> > > >> > > > I am -1 on treating VisibleForTesting as public API. Semantically it >> > > makes >> > > > no sense. >> > > > >> > > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 12:22 PM Nick Dimiduk <ndimi...@apache.org> >> > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > I'd like to get this [DISCUSS] wrapped up so we can proceed with >> > > release >> > > > > candidates. >> > > > > >> > > > > I don't see a clear consensus here. The conclusion I read is that >> > > > > developers generally intended the VisibleForTesting annotation to >> > > > indicate >> > > > > a method is not a part of our public API, but because we don't >> > > explicitly >> > > > > say this in our guide, we can't really stand on that for the >> > community. >> > > > > >> > > > > I propose we take the following, conservative steps going forward: >> > > > > >> > > > > 1. restore any VisibleForTesting method signatures for 2.3.0, >> treat >> > > this >> > > > as >> > > > > public API going forward. >> > > > > 2. annotate any existing methods carrying the VisibleForTesting >> > > > annotation >> > > > > as Deprecated in 2.3.x+, for removal in 4.0.0 >> > > > > 3. purge the VisibleForTesting annotation from our codebase for >> > 4.0.0, >> > > > > involving: >> > > > > 3a. replace VisibleForTesting with IA.Private anywhere method >> > > visibility >> > > > > cannot be limited >> > > > > 3b. perhaps add a new Yetus check that would ban new use of >> > > > > VisibleForTesting >> > > > > >> > > > > Did I miss anything? >> > > > > >> > > > > Thanks, >> > > > > Nick >> > > > > >> > > > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 12:22 AM Viraj Jasani <vjas...@apache.org >> > >> > > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > > +1 to "be clear in javadoc" and to the fact that guava >> dependency >> > > just >> > > > to >> > > > > > express intention which can be done through javadoc is not >> > > > > > required unless the library is capable of breaking compilation >> of >> > > > > > downstream >> > > > > > projects if they use VFT annotated classes/methods saying you >> can't >> > > use >> > > > > > this >> > > > > > (what if we have such fancy thing? :) ). >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On 2020/06/23 20:01:40, Sean Busbey <bus...@apache.org> wrote: >> > > > > > > +1 to "do it in javadoc" unless there's some magic for IDEs >> > brought >> > > > > about >> > > > > > > via the VFT annotation that I'm missing. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 13:04 Andrew Purtell < >> apurt...@apache.org> >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I don't find the VisibleForTesting annotation provides a >> lot of >> > > > > value. >> > > > > > It >> > > > > > > > became fashionable to use this annotation when a single >> line of >> > > > > Javadoc >> > > > > > > > would serve the same purpose and not make yet another >> > dependency >> > > on >> > > > > > Guava. >> > > > > > > > My advice is to remove them all and replace with Javadoc. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Even if in an IA.Public or LimitedPrivate we can decorate >> > > > individual >> > > > > > > > field/methods that are public but not intended to be part of >> > the >> > > > > public >> > > > > > > > portion of the API with a field or method level IA.Private >> > > > > decoration. >> > > > > > It's >> > > > > > > > maybe not nice to do, but that would directly and clearly >> > express >> > > > > > intent. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 10:15 AM Sean Busbey < >> > bus...@apache.org> >> > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > I think the intent behind VisibleForTesting is clear: the >> > > person >> > > > > > using >> > > > > > > > that >> > > > > > > > > annotation does not intend for it to be used by >> > downstreamers. >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > However, our stated API promises are in terms of the >> > Interface >> > > > > > Audience >> > > > > > > > > annotations only. So I think a downsteamer who e.g. used >> > > > automated >> > > > > > > > tooling >> > > > > > > > > to ensure they only used things marked IA.Public would be >> > > correct >> > > > > to >> > > > > > be >> > > > > > > > > upset with us if we incompatibly changed an IA.Public >> member >> > > that >> > > > > is >> > > > > > > > > annotated VisibleForTesting. >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Given that VisibleForTesting is in guava and we go to >> pains >> > to >> > > > > about >> > > > > > > > > exposing downstream to non-relocated guava I think it >> would >> > be >> > > a >> > > > > bad >> > > > > > idea >> > > > > > > > > to use it when defining our public API. >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > We should find places that use it, make sure they also >> carry >> > an >> > > > > > > > IA.Private >> > > > > > > > > if needed, and make sure our docs for developers are clear >> > > about >> > > > > > which >> > > > > > > > > annotations carry meaning for downstreamers (i.e. only >> > > Interface >> > > > > > Audience >> > > > > > > > > and Interface Stability). >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 11:29 Nick Dimiduk < >> > ndimi...@apache.org> >> > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > My hope is that we can clarify our policy and update the >> > book >> > > > > > > > > accordingly. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 9:01 AM Wellington Chevreuil < >> > > > > > > > > > wellington.chevre...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 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. >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > This specific case is >> > > > > *LoadIncrementalHFiles.tryAtomicRegionLoad, >> > > > > > > > > *mostly >> > > > > > > > > > > an end user tool, not likely to be extended. Bring >> back >> > the >> > > > > > original >> > > > > > > > > > method >> > > > > > > > > > > would not be much of an issue, though, I guess the >> > > discussion >> > > > > is >> > > > > > more >> > > > > > > > > on >> > > > > > > > > > > how to interpret @VisibleForTesting in general. >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Em ter., 23 de jun. de 2020 às 15:42, 张铎(Duo Zhang) < >> > > > > > > > > > palomino...@gmail.com >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > escreveu: >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 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 >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > -- >> > > > > > > > Best regards, >> > > > > > > > Andrew >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn >> from >> > > > > truth's >> > > > > > > > decrepit hands >> > > > > > > > - A23, Crosstalk >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > -- >> > > > Best regards, >> > > > Andrew >> > > > >> > > > Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from >> truth's >> > > > decrepit hands >> > > > - A23, Crosstalk >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Best regards, >> > Andrew >> > >> > Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's >> > decrepit hands >> > - A23, Crosstalk >> > >> >
