I assume you are referring to removing the singleton pattern, right? Because it's already everywhere :-)
Chris Gesendet von Outlook für Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg> ________________________________ From: 乔嘉林 <jialin.q...@timecho.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2024 3:33:27 AM To: dev@iotdb.apache.org <dev@iotdb.apache.org> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Refactoring IoTDB to eliminate the singleton pattern Hi, +1 for adding singleton pattern and UTs Jialin > From: "Christofer Dutz"<christofer.d...@c-ware.de> > Date: Tue, Aug 13, 2024, 22:32 > Subject: AW: [DISCUSS] Refactoring IoTDB to eliminate the singleton pattern > To: "dev@iotdb.apache.org"<dev@iotdb.apache.org> > Yeah … that’s what I’m proposing to do ;-) > > Make the stuff more easily testable and then also add tests for it. > > Chris > > Von: Xinyu Tan <tanxi...@apache.org> > Datum: Dienstag, 13. August 2024 um 15:55 > An: dev@iotdb.apache.org <dev@iotdb.apache.org> > Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Refactoring IoTDB to eliminate the singleton pattern > Yes, but if we want to improve line-level test coverage, we do need to make > our code more testable, i.e. add more uts > > On 2024/08/07 07:08:34 Christofer Dutz wrote: > > I should clarify, > > This is the coverage from within the module itself. We definitely have more > > coverage when also running the integration test module, however none of the > > parts I recently touched seem to have had any form of tests. > > > > Chris > > > > Gesendet von Outlook für Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg> > > ________________________________ > > From: Xinyu Tan <tanxi...@apache.org> > > Sent: Monday, August 5, 2024 11:43:24 AM > > To: dev@iotdb.apache.org <dev@iotdb.apache.org> > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Refactoring IoTDB to eliminate the singleton pattern > > > > Hi, Chris > > > > I am shocked to see our class coverage and line coverage so low. > > > > I support making changes to our use of singletons to identify more issues > > in unit tests, reducing the likelihood of problems surfacing in integration > > tests, release testing, or even user environments. > > > > In the future, I also advocate prioritizing unit tests over integration > > tests when testing certain functionalities. > > > > My suggestion is to adopt a test-driven approach. We should first define > > some quantifiable and observable metrics, and then continuously refactor > > the singleton pattern while improving these metrics. This approach seems > > more sustainable. > > > > Best > > ------------- > > Xinyu Tan > > > > On 2024/08/02 11:59:34 Christofer Dutz wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > So, one thing that has always been bothering me a bit with respect to the > > > IoTDB code-base, was the usage of the singleton pattern. > > > Even if it simplifies composition of a project, it comes with quite some > > > severe disadvantages. > > > > > > In my last PR I tried refactoring the usage of singletons to make > > > components more unit-testable and I was quite happy with the results. > > > > > > I wrote up my ideas as well as some facts from fellow Apache projects. > > > > > > https://timechor.feishu.cn/docx/QLgZdJWgUoKBLSx1t3EcBJdRnud > > > > > > Please have a look and comment here. I would really like to start the > > > progress of refactoring IoTDB (At least with this approach it doesn’t > > > have to be an all-or-nothing big-bang type of refactoring, but instead > > > can happen over time). > > > > > > Chris > > > > >
