This is quite strange error, in case of "install" phase it'd be better just add "checkstyle" profile to "Build" [1] configuration.
[1] https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_BuildApacheIgnite On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 11:43 AM Petr Ivanov <mr.wei...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The suite is malformed. > If no ~/.m2/repository/org/apache/ignite artifact are installed in system, > the build will fail [1] > > It seems that we should use install instead of validate. > > > [1] > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?tab=buildLog&logTab=tree&filter=debug&expand=all&buildId=3677858&_focus=288 > > > On 23 Apr 2019, at 00:25, Vyacheslav Daradur <daradu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Maxim, I merged your changes to master. > > Also, I've created a new build plan "Check Code Style" on TC [1] and > included in RunAll build. > The report of check-style attaches in artifacts once build is finished. > > Please check that it works as expected once again and announce new > requirements in a separate thread to avoid confusion of community. > > cc Petr, Pavel (JFYI) > > [1] > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_CheckCodeStyle&tab=buildTypeBranches > > On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 10:18 PM Vyacheslav Daradur <daradu...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Maxim, > > I left some comments in Jira, let's resolve them and I'll assist you > with merge and TC configuring. > > On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 5:50 PM Maxim Muzafarov <maxmu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Vyacheslav, > > Thank you for your interest in making Ignite coding style better. > > The short answer is - there are no different checkstyle > configurations. One for the JetBrains Inspections, and one the > Checkstyle plugin. This is a completely different approach for > checking the Ignites source code. > > Currently, we have two different configurations for the JetBrains IDEA > Inspection check: > - ignite\.idea\inspectionProfiles\Project_Default.xml - this is > default on the IDE level and used silently by every developer whos > checkout Ignite project (it remains) > - ignite\idea\ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml - this is the > configuration of the inspection for the TC suite (it will be deleted) > It's unobvious to maintain both of them. Previously we've planned to > fix all the inspection rules one by one and add them one by one to the > TC inspection configuration file (something like storing the > intermediate result), but it didn't happen cause the inspection TC > suite got broken after migration to 2018 version. > > Now it seems to me, that it is better to use the best open source > practices like checkstyle plugin (380K usages on github repositories) > rather than proprietary software. So, we will: > - keep IDE level inspection configuration (the Project_Default.xml config); > - add a new checkstyle plugin configuration file (checkstyle.xml > config) which will be used simultaneously for checking code style on > build procedure and for the IDE-checkstyle plugin; > > On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 at 21:23, Vyacheslav Daradur <daradu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Maxim, > > I looked through the PR and it looks good to me in general. > > The only question how it's planned to maintain check styles in 2 > different configurations, for IDEA and check style plugin? > > On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 12:30 PM Maxim Muzafarov <maxmu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Igniters, > > The issue [1] with enabled maven-checkstyle-plugin is ready for the review. > All changes are prepared according to e-mail [2] the second option > point (include the plugin in the maven build procedure by default). > > JIRA: IGNITE-11277 [1] > PR: [3] > Upsource: [4] > > How can take a look? > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11277 > [2] > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Code-inspection-tp27709p41297.html > [3] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/6119 > [4] https://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-1018 > > On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 at 19:19, Dmitriy Pavlov <dpav...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Hi Igniters, > > I see that a new TeamCity is released: Version: 2018.2.3. > > Probably it could solve recently introduced problem related to: > Unexpected error during build messages processing in TeamCity; > > Peter I., could you please check? > > Sincerely, > Dmitriy Pavlov > > пт, 15 мар. 2019 г. в 12:04, Павлухин Иван <vololo...@gmail.com>: > > I agree to gather some votes according to Maxim's proposal. > > Personally, I will not put my vote here. Both options will work for me > today. > > But I would like to say a bit about agility. As I said both options > sounds fine for me today. And I believe that we can switch from one to > another easily in future. Let's do our best to be flexible. > > пт, 15 мар. 2019 г. в 12:04, Павлухин Иван <vololo...@gmail.com>: > > > Maxim, > > As far as I understand your case, you want to fix all code styles > > issues right before getting the final TC results. Right? ... > > Actually, I mostly worry about accidental failures. For simple tasks > my workflow looks like: > 1. Create a branch. > 2. Write some code lines and tests. > 3. Run the most closely related tests from IDEA. > 4. Push changes to the branch. > 5. Launch TC. > 6. Take a cup of coffee ;-) > 7. Check TC results after a couple of hours. > > And in such workflow I can accidentally leave styling error (IDEA does > not fail compilation). And I will receive not very valuable report > from TC. And will have to wait for another couple of hours. > > Yes, usually I do not execute "mvn clean install" locally before > triggering TC. And I think that generally we should not do it because > TC does it. > > If not everybody uses a bot visas it sounds bad for me. For patches > touching the code it should be mandatory. Also, as you might know > there are different kind of visas and for some trivial patches we can > request Checkstyle visa. Committers should check formalities. > > пт, 15 мар. 2019 г. в 10:29, Nikolay Izhikov <nizhi...@apache.org>: > > > +1 to enable code style checks in compile time. > > We can add option to disable maven codestyle profile with some > > environment variable. > > > Anyone who want violate common project rules in their local branch can > > set this variable and write some nasty code before push :) > > > пт, 15 марта 2019 г., 9:40 Maxim Muzafarov <maxmu...@gmail.com>: > > > Ivan, > > 1. I can write code and execute tests successfully even if there are > > some style problems. I can imagine that a style error can arise > occasionally. And instead of getting test results after several hours > I will get a build failure without any tests run. I will simply lose > my time. But if the tests are allowed to proceed I will get a red flag > from code style check, fix those issues and rerun style check. > > As far as I understand your case, you want to fix all code styles > issues right before getting the final TC results. Right? It's doable > you can disable checkstyle in your local branch and revet it back when > you've done with all your changes to get the final visa. But the > common case here is building the project locally and checking all > requirements for PR right before pushing it to the GitHub repo. I > always do so. The "Checklist before push" [1] have such > recommendations. Build the project before push will eliminate your use > case. > > --- > > Igniters, > > To summarize the options we have with code checking behaviour: > > 1) (code style will be broken more often) Run checkstyle in the > separate TC suite and include it to the Bot visa. > - not all of us run TC for their branches especially for simple fixes > (it's the most common case when a new check style errors occur) > - not all of us use TC.Bot visa to verify their branches > - if this checkstyle suite starts to fail it will be ignored for some > time (not blocks the development process) > - a lot of suites for code checking (license, checkstyle, something > else in future) > > + a bit comfortable way of TC tests execution for local\prototyped PRs > (it's a matter of taste) > + build the project and execute test suites a bit earlier (checkstyle > on the separate suite does not affect other suites) > > 2) (code style will be broken less often) Run checkstyle on project > > build stage. > > - increases a bit the build time procedure > - require additional operations to switch it off for prototyping > > branches > > > + do not require TC.Bot visa if someone of the community doesn't use > > it > > + code style errors will be fixed immediately if the master branch > starts to fail > + the single place for code checks on maven code validation stage > (license check suite can be removed) > > > Please, add another advantages\disadvantages that I've missed. > Let's vote and pick the most suitable option for the Apache Ignite > > needs. > > > --- > > Personally, I'd like to choose the 2) option. > > The JIRA [2] and PR [3] with the checkstyle enabled plugin is ready > for the review. > > [1] > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+to+Contribute#HowtoContribute-Checklistbeforepush > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11277 > [3] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/6119 > > On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 at 11:19, Павлухин Иван <vololo...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > Maxim, > > From use cases described by you I use only 1 and 2. And actually I > think that we can concentrate on 1 and forget about others for now. > But please address my worries from previous letter: > ====Quoted text==== > 1. I can write code and execute tests successfully even if there are > some style problems. I can imagine that a style error can arise > occasionally. And instead of getting test results after several > > hours > > I will get a build failure without any tests run. I will simply lose > my time. But if the tests are allowed to proceed I will get a red > > flag > > from code style check, fix those issues and rerun style check. > 2. Style check takes some time. With simple checks it is almost > negligible. But it can grow if more checks are involved. > ====End of quoted text==== > > Some clarifications. 1 is about running from IDEA first. 2 is > > related > > to opinions that we should involve much more checks, e.g. using > abbreviations. > > чт, 7 мар. 2019 г. в 10:36, Maxim Muzafarov <maxmu...@gmail.com>: > > > Ivan, > > Let's take a look at all the options we have (ordered by the > > frequency of use): > > > 1. Check ready for merge branches (main case) > 2. Run tests on TC without checkstyle (prototyping branches) > 3. Local project build > 4. Quick build without any additional actions on TC > > In the other projects (kafka, netty etc.) which I've checked the > > checkstyle plugin is used in the <build> section, so the user has no chance > in common cases to disable it via command line (correct me if I'm wrong). > In the PR [1] I've moved checkstyle configuration to the separate profile. > I've set activation checkstyle profile if -DskipTests specified, so it will > run with the basic build configuration. It can also be disabled locally if > we really need it. > > > Back to our use cases: > > 1. For checking the ready to merge branches we will fail the > > ~Build Apache Ignite~ suite, so no configured checkstyle rules will be > violated. If we will use the TC.Bot approach someone will merge the branch > without running TC.Bot on it, but no one will merge the branch with compile > errors. > > > 2. For the prototyping branches, you can turn off checkstyle in > > your local PR by removing activation configuration. It's ok as these type > of branches will never be merged to the master. > > > 3. From my point, local builds should be always run with the > > checkstyle enabled profile. The common build action as `mvn clean install > -DskipTests` will activate the profile. > > > 4. The checkstyle profile can be disabled explicitly on TC by > > specifying -P !checkstyle option. A don't see any use cases of it, but it's > completely doable. > > > Please, correct me if I've missed something. > > I propose to merge PR [1] as it is, with the configured set of > > rules. > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/6119 > > On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 at 19:02 Павлухин Иван <vololo...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > Maxim, > > I like an idea of being IDE agnostic. I am ok with currently > > enabled > > checks, they are a must-have in my opinion (even for prototypes). > > But I am still do not like an idea of preventing tests execution > > if > > style check finds a problem. I checked out PR, installed a > > plugin and > > tried it out. Here are my concerns: > 1. I can write code and execute tests successfully even if there > > are > > some style problems. I can imagine that a style error can arise > occasionally. And instead of getting test results after several > > hours > > I will get a build failure without any tests run. I will simply > > lose > > my time. But if the tests are allowed to proceed I will get a > > red flag > > from code style check, fix those issues and rerun style check. > 2. Style check takes some time. With simple checks it is almost > negligible. But it can grow if more checks are involved. > > On the bright side I found nice integration of Checkstyle plugin > > with > > IDEA commit dialog. There is a checkbox "Scan with Checkstyle" > > which I > > think is quite useful. > > пн, 4 мар. 2019 г. в 15:00, Maxim Muzafarov <maxmu...@gmail.com > > : > > > Ivan, > > I like that Jetbrains inspections are integrated with IDE and > > TC out > > of the box, but currently, they are working not well enough on > > TC. > > Actually, they are not checking our source code at all. > > Let's try a bit another approach and try to be IDE-agnostic > > with code > > style checking. I've checked popular java projects: hadoop, > > kafka, > > spark, hive, netty. All of them are using > > maven-checkstyle-plugin in > > their <build> section by default, so why don't we? It sounds > reasonable for me at least to try so. > > Can you take a look at my changes below? > > > Igniters, > > PR [2] has been prepared. All the details I've mentioned in my > > comment > > in JIRA [4]. > Can anyone take a look at my changes? > > JIRA: [1] > PR: [2] > Upsource: [3] > > Questions to discuss: > 1) There is no analogue for inspections RedundantSuppression > > and > > SizeReplaceableByIsEmpty (all code style checks [5]). Propose > > to merge > > without them. > 2) Checkstyle plugin has it's own maven profile and enabled by > default. It can be turned off for prototype branches. > 3) I've removed the inspections configuration for the TC suite > > and > > propose to disable it as not working. > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11277 > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/6119 > [3] > > https://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-1018 > > [4] > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11277?focusedCommentId=16771200&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-16771200 > > [5] http://checkstyle.sourceforge.net/checks.html > > On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 16:21, Павлухин Иван < > > vololo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Nikolay, > > All community members are forced to follow code style. > > It's harder to achieve it with dedicated suite. > > Why it is easier to follow code style with use of maven > > checkstyle > > plugin? Is it integrated into IDEA out of box? As I got it > > additional > > IDEA plugin is needed as well. Who will enforce everybody to > > install > > it? > > Also, as I see a common good practice today is using TC Bot > > visa. Visa > > includes result from running inspections job. > > чт, 14 февр. 2019 г. в 16:08, Nikolay Izhikov < > > nizhi...@apache.org>: > > > Ivan, > > Could you please outline the benefits you see of failing > > compilation and > > skipping tests execution if inspections detect a problem? > > All community members are forced to follow code style. > It's harder to achieve it with dedicated suite. > > > чт, 14 февр. 2019 г. в 15:21, Павлухин Иван < > > vololo...@gmail.com>: > > > Nikolay, > > Should the community spend TC resources for prototype? > > Why not? I think it is not bad idea to run all tests > > against some > > changes into core classes. If I have a clever idea which > > is easy to > > test drive I can do couple of prototype-test iterations. > > If tests > > shows me that everything is bad then the idea was not so > > clever and > > easy. But if I was lucky then I should discuss the idea > > with other > > Igniters. I think it is the cheapest way to check the > > idea because the > > check is fully automated. Requiring a human feedback is > > much more > > expensive in my opinion. > > But, If our code style is not convinient for every day > > coding for many > > contributors, should you initiate discussion to change > > it? > > Generally I am fine with our codestyle requirements. > > Also, I would like to keep a focus on the subject. Could > > you please > > outline the benefits you see of failing compilation and > > skipping tests > > execution if inspections detect a problem? > > чт, 14 февр. 2019 г. в 14:14, Nikolay Izhikov < > > nizhi...@apache.org>: > > > Hello, Ivan. > > Requirements for a prototype code are not the same > > as for a patch ready > > to merge > > True. > > I do not see much need in writing good javadocs for > > prototype. > > > We, as a community, can't force you to do it. > > Why should I stub it to be able run any build on TC? > > > Should the community spend TC resources for prototype? > You always can check tests for your prototype locally. > > And when it's ready, at least from code style point of > > view run it on TC. > > > I, personally, always try to follow project code > > style, even for > > prototypes. > > But, If our code style is not convinient for every day > > coding for many > > contributors, should you initiate discussion to change > > it? > > > > ср, 13 февр. 2019 г. в 16:45, Павлухин Иван < > > vololo...@gmail.com>: > > > Maxim, > > Oh, my poor tabs.. Joke. > > I am totally ok with currently enabled checks. But I > > am mostly > > concerned about a general approach. I would like to > > outline one thing. > > Requirements for a prototype code are not the same > > as for a patch > > ready to merge (see a little bit more in the end of > > that message). > > > We have a document defining code style which every > > contributor should > > follow [1]. And many points can be checked > > automatically. Personally, > > I do not see much need in writing good javadocs for > > prototype. Why > > should I stub it to be able run any build on TC? > > Also, we a have a review process which should be > > applied to every > > patch. Partially it is described in [2]. And due to > > this process every > > patch should not introduce new failures on TC. So, > > the patch should > > not be merged if inspections failed. > > P.S. Something more about prototypes and production > > code. There is a > > common bad practice in software engineering. It is > > turning prototypes > > into production code. Often it is much faster to > > create a prototype by > > price of violating some rules of writing "clean > > code". And often > > prototype after successful piloting is turned into > > production code. > > And it is very easy in practice to keep some pieces > > of initially > > "dirty" prototype code. I believe human factor plays > > a great role > > here. How should it be done right then? In my > > opinion good production > > code should be designed as "good production code" > > from the beginning. > > So, only ideas are taken from the prototype and a > > code is fully > > rewritten. > > [1] > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Coding+Guidelines > > [2] > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Review+Checklist > > > ср, 13 февр. 2019 г. в 15:05, Maxim Muzafarov < > > maxmu...@gmail.com>: > > > Ivan, > > As the first implementation of this addition, I'd > > prefer to make it > > working like _Licenses Headers_ suite check. It > > will fail when some > > of > > the code style checks violated. Moreover, these > > licenses header > > checks > > can be included in the checkstyle plugin > > configuration. > > > In general, I'd prefer to have a compilation fail > > error with code > > style checks and after we will get a stable > > checkstyle suite I > > propose > > to change it in a "compilation error" way. If we > > are talking about > > the > > coding style convenient for most of the community > > members I see no > > difference with coding sketches or > > production-ready branches equally. > > Indeed, no one will be against unused imports [or > > spaces instead of > > tabs :-) ] in their PRs or prototypes, right? (for > > instance, it can > > be > > automatically removed by IDE at commit phase). > > Please, note currently enabled checks are: > - list.isEmpty() instead of list.size() == 0 > - unused imports > - missing @Override > - sotred modifiers checks (e.g. pulic static > > final ..) > > - redundunt suppersion checks > - spaces insted of tabs. > > Are you really what to violate these checks in > > your sketches? Hope > > not > > :-) > > > On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 at 10:25, Nikolay Izhikov < > > nizhi...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > Actually, I dont see anything wrong with failing > > *compilation* > > task. > > > I think one should use project code style for > > everyday coding, not > > only for > > ready-to-merge PRs. > > If we cant use code style for everyday coding, > > we should change the > > codestyle. > > What do you think? > > ср, 13 февр. 2019 г., 10:11 Petr Ivanov > > mr.wei...@gmail.com: > > > I guess that was about failing build > > configuration with > > Checkstype, > > not > > compilation build itself. > > On 12 Feb 2019, at 18:03, Павлухин Иван < > > vololo...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > Folks, > > Are you going to fail job compiling Ignite > > sources [1] if some > > inspection found a problem? Can we avoid it? > > It is quite common > > pattern to start some feature implementation > > with making a > > sketch > > and > > running tests against it. I found it > > convenient to skip some > > style > > requirements for such sketches (e.g. well > > formed javadocs). > > > [1] > > > > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_BuildApacheIgnite > > > пн, 11 февр. 2019 г. в 11:38, Nikolay > > Izhikov < > > nizhi...@apache.org > > : > > > Petr, we should have 1 configuration for > > project, may be 1 > > configuration > > per programming language. > > пн, 11 февр. 2019 г., 11:33 Petr Ivanov > > mr.wei...@gmail.com: > > > I was asking about how many build > > configuration is intended? > > One > > for > > all > > and multiple per module? > > With IDEA inspections it was going to be > > build configuration > > per > > module. > > > > > > On 11 Feb 2019, at 11:24, Nikolay Izhikov > > < > > nizhi...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > Hello, Petr. > > Are you saying that we have not single > > build task? And each > > module > > builds > > when it required? If yes, then I propose > > to create a task > > like > > "Licence > > check" which will be run for every patch. > > My point is that violation of codestyle > > should be treated as > > hard as > > compile error. > > пн, 11 февр. 2019 г., 11:16 Petr Ivanov > > mr.wei...@gmail.com > > : > > > Is build configuration Inspections > > [Core] meant to > > transform > > into > > single > > all-modules check build configuration > > (without module > > subdivision)? > > > > On 11 Feb 2019, at 11:02, Nikolay > > Izhikov < > > nizhi...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > Hello, Maxim. > > +1 from me for migrating to checkstyle. > > Oleg, there is plugin for IDEA with > > 2mln downloads - > > > https://plugins.jetbrains.com/plugin/1065-checkstyle-idea > > > I propose do the following: > > 1. Migrate current checks to checkstyle. > 2. Apply checks to all Ignite modules. > > Currently, only > > core > > module > > are > > checked. > I will review and commit this patch, or > > do it by my own. > > > 3. Include code style checks to "Build > > Apache Ignite" > > suite. > > Ignite > > has > > to > > fail to build if patch violates > > codestyle. > > > вс, 10 февр. 2019 г. в 07:54, Павлухин > > Иван < > > vololo...@gmail.com>: > > > Hi, > > I also think that some warning from > > IDEA that some code > > style rule > > is > > violated is a must-have. > > вс, 10 февр. 2019 г. в 01:58, > > oignatenko < > > oignate...@gridgain.com > > : > > > Hi Maxim, > > I believe that whatever style checks > > we establish at > > Teamcity, we > > better > > take care of making it easy for > > developers to find and > > fix > > violations > > in > > their typical dev environment (for > > Ignite this means, in > > IDEA). I > > think > > it > > is important that developers can > > maintain required style > > with > > minimal > > effort > > on their side. > > If above is doable then I am 200% for > > migrating our > > Teamcity > > inspections > > to > > checkstyle / maven. > > This is because I am very > > disappointed observing how it > > stays > > broken > > for > > so > > long. And worst of all, even when > > (if) it is fixed, I > > feel > > we will > > always be > > at risk that it breaks again and that > > we will have to > > again > > wait > > for > > months > > for it to be fixed. > > This is such a stark contrast with my > > experience > > regarding > > checkstyle > > based > > inspections. These just work and you > > just never fear > > that > > it is > > going > > to > > break for some obscure reason, this > > is so much better > > than > > what I > > observe > > now. > > One suggestion in case if we pick > > checkstyle - I > > recommend > > keeping > > its > > config file somewhere in the project > > under version > > control. > > I > > used to > > maintain such a shared style config > > at one of past jobs > > and > > after > > some > > experimenting it turned out most > > convenient to have it > > this > > way - > > so > > that > > developers could easily assess and > > discuss style > > settings > > and keep > > track > > of > > changes in these. (note how Kafka > > folks from your link > > [5] > > appear > > to > > be > > doing it this way) > > regards, Oleg > > > Mmuzaf wrote > > Igniters, > > I've found that some of the > > community members have > > faced > > with > > `[Inspections] Core suite [1]` is > > not working well > > enough > > on TC. > > The > > suite has a `FAILED` status for more > > than 2 months due > > to > > some > > issues > > in TeamCity application [2]. Current > > suite behaviour > > confuses not > > only > > new contributors but also other > > community members. > > Moreover, this > > suite is no longer checks rules we > > previously > > configured. > > For > > instance, in the master branch, I've > > found 11 `Unused > > imports` > > which > > should have been caught earlier > > (e.g. for > > {{IgniteCachePutAllRestartTest} [3]). > > I think we should make the next step > > to enable an > > automatic code > > style > > checks. As an example, we can > > consider the Apache Kafka > > code > > style > > [5] > > way and configure for the Ignite > > project a > > maven-checkstyle-plugin > > with its own maven profile and run > > it simultaneously > > with > > other > > TC. > > We > > can also enable the previously > > configured inspection > > rules, so no > > coding style violations will be > > missed. > > > I see some advantages of using a > > maven plugin: > > - an IDE agnostic way for code checks > - can be used with different CI and > > build tools > > (Jenkins, > > TC) > > - executable from the command line > - the entry single point to > > configure new rules > > > I've created the ticket [4] and will > > prepare PR for it. > > > WDYT? > > [1] > > > > > > > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E&tab=buildTypeStatusDiv > > [2] > > https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/TW-58504 > > [3] > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/core/src/test/java/org/apache/ignite/internal/processors/cache/IgniteCachePutAllRestartTest.java#L29 > > [4] > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11277 > > [5] > > https://github.com/apache/kafka/tree/trunk/checkstyle > > > On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 at 16:03, Petr > > Ivanov < > > > mr.weider@ > > > > wrote: > > > It seems there is bug in latest > > 2018.2 TeamCity > > Bug is filed [1] > > > [1] > > https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/TW-58504 > > > On 19 Dec 2018, at 11:31, Petr > > Ivanov < > > > mr.weider@ > > > > wrote: > > > Investigating problem, stand by. > > > On 18 Dec 2018, at 19:41, Dmitriy > > Pavlov < > > > dpavlov@ > > > > wrote: > > > Both patches were applied. Maxim, > > thank you! > > > What about 1. An `Unexpected > > error during build > > messages > > processing in > > TeamCity`, what can we do as the > > next step to fix > > it? > > > Sincerely, > Dmitriy Pavlov > [cut] > > > > > > > > > -- > Sent from: > > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/ > > > > > -- > Best regards, > Ivan Pavlukhin > > > > > > > > > -- > Best regards, > Ivan Pavlukhin > > > > > > > -- > Best regards, > Ivan Pavlukhin > > > > > -- > Best regards, > Ivan Pavlukhin > > > > > -- > Best regards, > Ivan Pavlukhin > > > > > -- > Best regards, > Ivan Pavlukhin > > > -- > -- > Maxim Muzafarov > > > > > -- > Best regards, > Ivan Pavlukhin > > > > > -- > Best regards, > Ivan Pavlukhin > > > > > -- > Best regards, > Ivan Pavlukhin > > > > > > -- > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D. > > > > > -- > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D. > > > > > -- > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D. > > -- Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
