Igniters, I'm -1 with making Javadoc optional (except tests).
Here is my patch [1] with PR [2] which fixes all the Javadoc comments for the IgniteKernal class mentioned above. Please, take a look. The review is very appreciated. On what we are trying to save by making Javadoc optional? In my humble opinion - Javadoc comments are mostly concern users who debug the Ignite when they have faced with some unhandled exception or related to the community members with an average involvement (produces a few small patches during the year) but not to the experienced one. Let's just help them to read the source code. [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12051 [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/6760 On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 13:54, Andrey Kuznetsov <stku...@gmail.com> wrote: > > +1 for making javadoc comments optional. > > - Empty and tautological comments are kind of garbage that reduce > readability. > - It's better to leave the entity undocumented, than write > unexpressive/misleading comment. > - Even classes may not require javadocs, e.g. simple DTOs. > > ср, 7 авг. 2019 г., 13:39 Denis Garus <garus....@gmail.com>: > > > Thx for feedback! > > > > >> we have to write proper javadoc for all production classes, including > > internal. > > > > Nikolay, I cannot agree with it. > > > > What should be the best comment for the next fields? > > /** */ > > private static final long serialVersionUID = 0L; > > or > > /** */ > > @LoggerResource > > private IgniteLogger log; > > > > There are more than 8000 lines of /** */ only at the ignite-core module (do > > not include tests). > > > > Any comments will be redundant and just noise. Obvious comment learns > > readers skip all comments. > > > > > > >> identical distance/padding/margin between fields in a class - is really > > cool > > > > Vyacheslav, but we have a blank line between fields. Why is one blank line > > not enough? > > > > ср, 7 авг. 2019 г. в 12:58, Павлухин Иван <vololo...@gmail.com>: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > Denis, thank you for starting this discussion! > > > > > > My opinion here is that having a good javadoc for every class and > > > method is not feasible in the real world. I am quite curious to see a > > > non-trivial project which follows it. Also, all comments and javadocs > > > are prone to become misleading when code changes (human factor). In my > > > experience good method and variable names and clear code organization > > > often are more helpful than javadocs. > > > > > > ср, 7 авг. 2019 г. в 12:49, Vyacheslav Daradur <daradu...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > > I agree that useless comments look weird in the codebase. > > > > > > > > But, identical distance/padding/margin between fields in a class - is > > > > really cool, and helps read the class very fast. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 12:26 PM Nikolay Izhikov <nizhi...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Denis. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for starting this discussion. > > > > > > > > > > I think we have to write proper javadoc for all production classes, > > > including internal. > > > > > We should fix useless javadoc you provide. > > > > > We should not accept patches without good javadocs. > > > > > > > > > > As for the tests, seems, we can make javadoc optional. > > > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > В Ср, 07/08/2019 в 11:41 +0300, Denis Garus пишет: > > > > > > Igniters! > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it's time to change coding guidelines in part of JavaDoc > > > comments > > > > > > [1]: > > > > > > > > Every method, field or initializer public, private or protected > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > top-level, > > > > > > > > inner or anonymous type should have at least minimal Javadoc > > > comments > > > > > > > > > > > > including > > > > > > > > description and description of parameters using @param, @return > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > @throws Javadoc tags, > > > > > > > > where applicable. > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's look at JavaDoc comments in the IgniteKernal class: > > > > > > > > > > > > Why? > > > > > > > > > > > > /** */ - 15 matches. > > > > > > > > > > > > What can you get new from these comments? > > > > > > > > > > > > /** Periodic starvation check interval. */ > > > > > > private static final long PERIODIC_STARVATION_CHECK_FREQ = 1000 * > > 30; > > > > > > > > > > > > /** Long jvm pause detector. */ > > > > > > private LongJVMPauseDetector longJVMPauseDetector; > > > > > > > > > > > > /** Scheduler. */ > > > > > > private IgniteScheduler scheduler; > > > > > > > > > > > > /** Stop guard. */ > > > > > > private final AtomicBoolean stopGuard = new AtomicBoolean(); > > > > > > > > > > > > /** > > > > > > * @param cfg Configuration to use. > > > > > > * @param utilityCachePool Utility cache pool. > > > > > > * @param execSvc Executor service. > > > > > > * @param sysExecSvc System executor service. > > > > > > * @param stripedExecSvc Striped executor. > > > > > > * @param p2pExecSvc P2P executor service. > > > > > > * @param mgmtExecSvc Management executor service. > > > > > > * @param igfsExecSvc IGFS executor service. > > > > > > * @param dataStreamExecSvc data stream executor service. > > > > > > * @param restExecSvc Reset executor service. > > > > > > * @param affExecSvc Affinity executor service. > > > > > > * @param idxExecSvc Indexing executor service. > > > > > > * @param callbackExecSvc Callback executor service. > > > > > > * @param qryExecSvc Query executor service. > > > > > > * @param schemaExecSvc Schema executor service. > > > > > > * @param customExecSvcs Custom named executors. > > > > > > * @param errHnd Error handler to use for notification about > > > startup > > > > > > problems. > > > > > > * @param workerRegistry Worker registry. > > > > > > * @param hnd Default uncaught exception handler used by thread > > > pools. > > > > > > * @throws IgniteCheckedException Thrown in case of any errors. > > > > > > */ > > > > > > public void start( > > > > > > final IgniteConfiguration cfg, > > > > > > ExecutorService utilityCachePool, > > > > > > final ExecutorService execSvc, > > > > > > final ExecutorService svcExecSvc, > > > > > > final ExecutorService sysExecSvc, > > > > > > final StripedExecutor stripedExecSvc, > > > > > > ExecutorService p2pExecSvc, > > > > > > ExecutorService mgmtExecSvc, > > > > > > ExecutorService igfsExecSvc, > > > > > > StripedExecutor dataStreamExecSvc, > > > > > > ExecutorService restExecSvc, > > > > > > ExecutorService affExecSvc, > > > > > > @Nullable ExecutorService idxExecSvc, > > > > > > IgniteStripedThreadPoolExecutor callbackExecSvc, > > > > > > ExecutorService qryExecSvc, > > > > > > ExecutorService schemaExecSvc, > > > > > > @Nullable final Map<String, ? extends ExecutorService> > > > > > > customExecSvcs, > > > > > > GridAbsClosure errHnd, > > > > > > WorkersRegistry workerRegistry, > > > > > > Thread.UncaughtExceptionHandler hnd, > > > > > > TimeBag startTimer > > > > > > ) > > > > > > > > > > > > These comments look ugly and useless, and that is the main class of > > > core. > > > > > > Why do they need us? > > > > > > Let us change the coding guidelines in part of JavaDoc comments: > > > > > > Every method public API should have at least minimal Javadoc > > > comments, > > > > > > including description and description of parameters using @param, > > > @return, > > > > > > and @throws Javadoc tags, > > > > > > where applicable. > > > > > > For internal API, JavaDoc comments should be optional. It's up to a > > > > > > contributor or reviewer. > > > > > > > > > > > > What are you think? > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Coding+Guidelines#CodingGuidelines-JavadocComments > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Best regards, > > > Ivan Pavlukhin > > > > >
