I believe it's a typo hahaha~ Eliminating the singleton pattern is our community's goal.
Xinyu Tan On 2024/08/14 06:48:35 Christofer Dutz wrote: > 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 <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2024 3:33:27 AM > To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Refactoring IoTDB to eliminate the singleton pattern > > Hi, > > +1 for adding singleton pattern and UTs > > Jialin > > From: "Christofer Dutz"<[email protected]> > > Date: Tue, Aug 13, 2024, 22:32 > > Subject: AW: [DISCUSS] Refactoring IoTDB to eliminate the singleton pattern > > To: "[email protected]"<[email protected]> > > 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 <[email protected]> > > Datum: Dienstag, 13. August 2024 um 15:55 > > An: [email protected] <[email protected]> > > 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 <[email protected]> > > > Sent: Monday, August 5, 2024 11:43:24 AM > > > To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > > > 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 > > > > > > > >
