Andrey, Thank you for solving this issue with GC pauses! I've checked the given report. The inspections configuration is correct, but it seems to me that we have enabled by default rules of included plugins (for instance, KotlinInternalInJava in the report is enabled).
Can you share more details about `disable plugin` option you found? I see that idea instance starts with the default -Didea.plugins.path system property, can we change it so the plugins will be not loaded by default? On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 at 15:45, Andrey Mashenkov <andrey.mashen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Maxim, > > It looks like we can't make logs more verbose due to possible bug, I've > create a ticket in Jetbrains Jira [1]. > We can just publish idea logs in artefacts as suggested in this manual [2]. > > For now, Inspections logs looks like this one [3]. > Also, would you please to take a look at inspection report and check if we > missed smth and there are any unwanted inspection turned on. > > [1] https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/TW-58422 > [2] > https://confluence.jetbrains.com/display/TCD10/Reporting+Issues#ReportingIssues-IntelliJIDEAInspections > [3] > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=2538111&buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_ExcludedInspections2&tab=artifacts > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 3:19 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <dpav...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> Maxim M, do you know if we can disable inspections by wildcard? E.g. >> Android* ? >> >> чт, 13 дек. 2018 г. в 14:59, Andrey Mashenkov <andrey.mashen...@gmail.com>: >> >> > Fixed memory issues with increasing heap size and forcing G1GC. >> > >> > Do we need all these plugins loaded for inspections? >> > I've found a 'disable plugin' option in TC Inspections build configuration, >> > but it is unclear how to disable plugin correctly. >> > Can someone take over this? >> > >> > > 46 plugins initialized in 1031 ms >> > > 2018-12-13 10:55:24,875 [ 1342] INFO - llij.ide.plugins.PluginManager - >> > > Loaded bundled plugins: Android Support (10.2.3), Ant Support (1.0), CSS >> > > Support (172.4574.11), Database Tools and SQL (172.4574.11), Eclipse >> > > Integration (3.0), FreeMarker support (1.0), GWT Support (1.0), Gradle >> > > (172.4574.11), Groovy (9.0), Guice (8.0), HTML Tools (2.0), Hibernate >> > > Support (1.0), I18n for Java (172.4574.11), IDEA CORE (172.4574.11), >> > > IntelliLang (8.0), JBoss Seam Support (1.0), JUnit (1.0), Java EE: Bean >> > > Validation Support (1.1), Java EE: Contexts and Dependency Injection >> > (1.1), >> > > Java EE: EJB, JPA, Servlets (1.0), Java EE: Java Server Faces (2.2.X.), >> > > Java EE: Web Services (JAX-WS) (1.9), Java Server Pages (JSP) Integration >> > > (1.0), JavaScript Support (1.0), Kotlin (1.1.4-release-IJ2017.2-3), Maven >> > > Integration (172.4574.11), Persistence Frameworks Support (1.0), Plugin >> > > DevKit (1.0), Properties Support (172.4574.11), QuirksMode (172.4574.11), >> > > Spring AOP/@AspectJ (1.0), Spring Batch (1.0), Spring Data (1.0), Spring >> > > Integration Patterns (1.0), Spring Security (1.0), Spring Support (1.0), >> > > Spring Web Flow (1.0), Spring Web Services (1.0), Struts 1.x (2.0), >> > Struts >> > > 2 (1.0), TestNG-J (8.0), UI Designer (172.4574.11), Velocity support >> > (1.0), >> > > W3C Validators (2.0), WebLogic Integration (1.0), XPathView + XSLT >> > Support >> > > (4) >> > >> > >> > Kotlin plugins fails to start, let's disable it. >> > >> > > >> > > 2018-12-13 10:55:27,623 [ 4090] INFO - >> > il.indexing.FileBasedIndexImpl - Rebuild requested for index >> > org.jetbrains.kotlin.idea.versions.KotlinJvmMetadataVersionIndex >> > > java.lang.Throwable >> > > at >> > com.intellij.util.indexing.FileBasedIndex.requestRebuild(FileBasedIndex.java:68) >> > > at >> > org.jetbrains.kotlin.idea.versions.KotlinUpdatePluginComponent.initComponent(KotlinUpdatePluginComponent.kt:54) >> > > at >> > com.intellij.openapi.components.impl.ComponentManagerImpl$ComponentConfigComponentAdapter.getComponentInstance(ComponentManagerImpl.java:492) >> > > at >> > com.intellij.openapi.components.impl.ComponentManagerImpl.createComponents(ComponentManagerImpl.java:118) >> > > at >> > com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.a(ApplicationImpl.java:462) >> > > at >> > com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.createComponents(ApplicationImpl.java:466) >> > > at >> > com.intellij.openapi.components.impl.ComponentManagerImpl.init(ComponentManagerImpl.java:102) >> > > at >> > com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.load(ApplicationImpl.java:421) >> > > at >> > com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.load(ApplicationImpl.java:407) >> > > at com.intellij.idea.IdeaApplication.run(IdeaApplication.java:203) >> > >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 1:45 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <dpav...@apache.org> wrote: >> > >> > > Sure, let's apply. I hope all TC agents may handle 4G heap. >> > > >> > > чт, 13 дек. 2018 г. в 12:54, Andrey Mashenkov < >> > andrey.mashen...@gmail.com >> > > >: >> > > >> > > > Guys, >> > > > >> > > > I've just creates a copy of Inspections TC build task with GC logs >> > turned >> > > > on to check if there is any issues >> > > > and found Inspections task spent too much time in STW due to long Full >> > GC >> > > > pauses. >> > > > >> > > > I've tried to increase Xmx up to 4Gb and use G1GC got 2+ times better >> > > > execution time down to ~15 min (~17 for 2G heap). >> > > > Increasing heap size only is not very helpful as it just postpone Full >> > GC >> > > > issues, but changing GC to G1GC gives noticeable result. >> > > > >> > > > Let's apply this optimization. >> > > > Thoughts? >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 12:43 PM Vyacheslav Daradur < >> > daradu...@gmail.com> >> > > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > Hi, Maxim, Nikolay, I have the following questions regarding >> > > inspections: >> > > > > >> > > > > Should 'gnite_inspections_teamcity.xml' been imported into IDEA, >> > since >> > > > > 'ignite_inspections.xml' has been removed in actual master? >> > > > > >> > > > > Also, I've faced mismatching: if I use >> > > > > '@SuppressWarnings("ErrorNotRethrown")' in code, then this will be >> > > > > marked on TC as "Redundant suppression". If I removed this >> > suppression >> > > > > in "main" code base (not in tests) then it's fine and IDE does not >> > > > > mark the code by inspection. But, if I use >> > > > > 'GridTestUtils#assertThrows' in 'tests' code base, then IDE requires >> > > > > to suppress the inspection, if I have done it then TC marks this as >> > > > > "Redundant suppression". >> > > > > >> > > > > What should I do in this case? >> > > > > >> > > > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 10:26 PM Andrey Mashenkov >> > > > > <andrey.mashen...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Hi, >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Have someone tried to investigate the issue related to Inspection >> > TC >> > > > task >> > > > > > execution time variation (from 0.5 up to 1,5 hours)? >> > > > > > Can we enable GC logs for this task or may be even get CPU, Disk, >> > > > Network >> > > > > > metrics? >> > > > > > Can someone check if there are unnecessary Idea plugins starts that >> > > can >> > > > > be >> > > > > > safely disabled? >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 5:52 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <dpav...@apache.org >> > > >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > I'm totally with you in this decision, let's move the file. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > вт, 27 нояб. 2018 г. в 16:24, Maxim Muzafarov < >> > maxmu...@gmail.com >> > > >: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Igniters, >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I propose to make inspection configuration default on the >> > project >> > > > > > > > level. I've created a new issue [1] for it. It can be easily >> > done >> > > > and >> > > > > > > > recommend by IntelliJ documentation [2]. >> > > > > > > > Thoughts? >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Vyacheslav, >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Can you share an example of your warnings? >> > > > > > > > Currently, we have different inspection configurations: >> > > > > > > > - ignite_inspections.xml - to import inspections as default and >> > > use >> > > > > it >> > > > > > > > daily. >> > > > > > > > - ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml - config to run it on TC. >> > Only >> > > > > fixed >> > > > > > > > rules in the project code are enabled. Each of these rules are >> > > > marked >> > > > > > > > with ERROR level. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10422 >> > > > > > > > [2] https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/code-inspection.html >> > > > > > > > On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 at 13:58, Nikolay Izhikov < >> > > nizhi...@apache.org >> > > > > >> > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Hello, Vyacheslav. >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Yes, we have. >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Maxim Muzafarov, can you fix it, please? >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > вт, 20 нояб. 2018 г., 13:10 Vyacheslav Daradur >> > > > daradu...@gmail.com >> > > > > : >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Guys, why we have 2 different inspection files in the repo? >> > > > > > > > > > idea\ignite_inspections.xml >> > > > > > > > > > idea\ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > AFAIK TeamCity is able to use the same inspection file with >> > > > IDE. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > I've imported 'idea\ignite_inspections.xml' in the IDE, but >> > > now >> > > > > see >> > > > > > > > > > inspection warnings for my PR on TC because of different >> > > rules. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 6:06 PM Maxim Muzafarov < >> > > > > maxmu...@gmail.com> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Yakov, Dmitry, >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Which example of unsuccessful suite execution do we need? >> > > > > > > > > > > Does the current fail [1] in the master branch enough to >> > > > > configure >> > > > > > > > > > > notifications by TC.Bot? >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Please consider adding more checks >> > > > > > > > > > > > - line endings. I think we should only have \n >> > > > > > > > > > > > - ensure blank line at the end of file >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > It seems to me that `line endings` is easy to add, but >> > for >> > > > the >> > > > > > > `blank >> > > > > > > > > > > line at the end` we need as special regexp. Can we focus >> > on >> > > > > > > built-in >> > > > > > > > > > > IntelliJ inspections at first and fix others special >> > > further? >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > [1] >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E&tab=buildTypeStatusDiv >> > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 at 17:55, Maxim Muzafarov < >> > > > > maxmu...@gmail.com> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters, >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Since the inspection rules are included in RunAll a few >> > > > > members >> > > > > > > of >> > > > > > > > the >> > > > > > > > > > > > community mentioned a wide distributed execution time >> > on >> > > TC >> > > > > > > agents: >> > > > > > > > > > > > - 1h:27m:38s publicagent17_9094 >> > > > > > > > > > > > - 38m:04s publicagent17_9094 >> > > > > > > > > > > > - 33m:29s publicagent17_9094 >> > > > > > > > > > > > - 17m:13s publicagent17_9094 >> > > > > > > > > > > > It seems that we should configure the resources >> > > > distribution >> > > > > > > > across TC >> > > > > > > > > > > > containers. Can anyone take a look at it? >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > I've also prepared the short list of rules to work on: >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Inconsistent line separators (6 matches) >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Problematic whitespace (4 matches) >> > > > > > > > > > > > + expression.equals("literal")' rather than >> > > > > > > > > > > > '"literal".equals(expression) (53 matches) >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Unnecessary 'null' check before 'instanceof' >> > expression >> > > > or >> > > > > call >> > > > > > > > (42 >> > > > > > > > > > matches) >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Redundant 'if' statement (69 matches) >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Redundant interface declaration (28 matches) >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Double negation (0 matches) >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Unnecessary code block (472 matches) >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Line is longer than allowed by code style (2614 >> > > matches) >> > > > > (Is it >> > > > > > > > > > > > possible to implement?) >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT? >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 23:43, Dmitriy Pavlov < >> > > > > > > > dpavlov....@gmail.com> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Maxim, >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > thank you for your efforts to make this happen. Keep >> > > the >> > > > > pace! >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please provide an example of how >> > Inspections >> > > > can >> > > > > > > fail, >> > > > > > > > so >> > > > > > > > > > I or >> > > > > > > > > > > > > another contributor could implement support of these >> > > > > failures >> > > > > > > > > > validation in >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the Tc Bot. >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > пт, 26 окт. 2018 г. в 18:27, Yakov Zhdanov < >> > > > > > > yzhda...@apache.org >> > > > > > > > >: >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maxim, >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for response, let's do it the way you >> > > suggested. >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please consider adding more checks >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - line endings. I think we should only have \n >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - ensure blank line in the end of file >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > All these are code reviews issues I pointed out >> > many >> > > > > times >> > > > > > > when >> > > > > > > > > > reviewing >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > conributions. It would be cool if we have TC build >> > > > > failing if >> > > > > > > > > > there is any. >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --Yakov >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- >> > > > > > > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > -- >> > > > > > Best regards, >> > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > -- >> > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D. >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > -- >> > > > Best regards, >> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Best regards, >> > Andrey V. Mashenkov >> > > > > > -- > Best regards, > Andrey V. Mashenkov
