Re: Code inspection

[Nikolay Izhikov]

Hello, Ivan.

> For me fields without extra empty lines between them look fine.

This is violation of Ignite code style, so we should fix it for now.
If we decide to change code style, we can change check.

> Can/should we enforce no empty lines there?

You can look into checkstyle documentation for it.
For now, I don't know about such checks.


В Пн, 03/06/2019 в 16:11 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет:
> Hi Nikolay,
> 
> Great, another one nice step to clean code.
> 
> I scrolled down the commit [1] and have couple of observations:
> 1. According to our code style agreements each class member should be
> separated by 1 empty line. As I see there were many places where it
> was not followed for class fields. E.g. empty lines were added for a
> code snippet below. For me fields without extra empty lines between
> them look fine. Of course, it is a question of our agreements. So, we
> can either permit no empty lines for fields or enforce empty line for
> each class member.
> private static class FlaggedCacheOperationCallable implements
> Callable, Serializable {
> /** */
> private static final long serialVersionUID = 0L;
> /** */
> private final String cacheName;
> /** */
> private final Set cacheFlags;
> 
> 2. Also I noticed an empty line between a method signature and a first
> statement in the method in some places, e.g. [2]. Can/should we
> enforce no empty lines there?
> 
> And one aside observation (in the same file), it has class fields
> without a javadoc [3]. Do not our code check jobs enforce javadoc for
> fields?
> 
> [1] 
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/d63f4d3569dcb387394d367a7f00aaf35f1b288e
> [2] 
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/internal/util/io/GridReversedLinesFileReader.java#L154
> [3] 
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/internal/util/io/GridReversedLinesFileReader.java#L35
> 
> вс, 2 июн. 2019 г. в 22:00, Nikolay Izhikov :
> > 
> > Hello, Igniters.
> > 
> > 1. I've added "EmptyLineSeparator" inspection, according to our code style
> > [1]
> > 2. I've fixed all current code style violations.
> > 
> > Please, see my commit [2]
> > 
> > You may want to merge these changes to your private repos.
> > 
> > [1]
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Coding+Guidelines#CodingGuidelines-Whitespacesandemptylines
> > [2]
> > https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/d63f4d3569dcb387394d367a7f00aaf35f1b288e
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > вт, 23 апр. 2019 г. в 10:45, Vyacheslav Daradur :
> > 
> > > Also, I excluded "IntelliJ IDEA Inspections" from RunAll and marked it
> > > as "~[Excluded]".
> > > 
> > > On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 12:25 AM Vyacheslav Daradur 
> > > 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=buildTypeBranches
> > > > 
> > > > On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 10:18 PM Vyacheslav Daradur 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 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 
> > > 
> > > 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 

Re: Code inspection

[Павлухин Иван]

Hi Nikolay,

Great, another one nice step to clean code.

I scrolled down the commit [1] and have couple of observations:
1. According to our code style agreements each class member should be
separated by 1 empty line. As I see there were many places where it
was not followed for class fields. E.g. empty lines were added for a
code snippet below. For me fields without extra empty lines between
them look fine. Of course, it is a question of our agreements. So, we
can either permit no empty lines for fields or enforce empty line for
each class member.
private static class FlaggedCacheOperationCallable implements
Callable, Serializable {
/** */
private static final long serialVersionUID = 0L;
/** */
private final String cacheName;
/** */
private final Set cacheFlags;

2. Also I noticed an empty line between a method signature and a first
statement in the method in some places, e.g. [2]. Can/should we
enforce no empty lines there?

And one aside observation (in the same file), it has class fields
without a javadoc [3]. Do not our code check jobs enforce javadoc for
fields?

[1] 
https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/d63f4d3569dcb387394d367a7f00aaf35f1b288e
[2] 
https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/internal/util/io/GridReversedLinesFileReader.java#L154
[3] 
https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/internal/util/io/GridReversedLinesFileReader.java#L35

вс, 2 июн. 2019 г. в 22:00, Nikolay Izhikov :
>
> Hello, Igniters.
>
> 1. I've added "EmptyLineSeparator" inspection, according to our code style
> [1]
> 2. I've fixed all current code style violations.
>
> Please, see my commit [2]
>
> You may want to merge these changes to your private repos.
>
> [1]
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Coding+Guidelines#CodingGuidelines-Whitespacesandemptylines
> [2]
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/d63f4d3569dcb387394d367a7f00aaf35f1b288e
>
>
>
>
> вт, 23 апр. 2019 г. в 10:45, Vyacheslav Daradur :
>
> > Also, I excluded "IntelliJ IDEA Inspections" from RunAll and marked it
> > as "~[Excluded]".
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 12:25 AM Vyacheslav Daradur 
> > 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=buildTypeBranches
> > >
> > > On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 10:18 PM Vyacheslav Daradur 
> > 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 
> > 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 

Re: Code inspection

[Nikolay Izhikov]

Hello, Igniters.

1. I've added "EmptyLineSeparator" inspection, according to our code style
[1]
2. I've fixed all current code style violations.

Please, see my commit [2]

You may want to merge these changes to your private repos.

[1]
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Coding+Guidelines#CodingGuidelines-Whitespacesandemptylines
[2]
https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/d63f4d3569dcb387394d367a7f00aaf35f1b288e




вт, 23 апр. 2019 г. в 10:45, Vyacheslav Daradur :

> Also, I excluded "IntelliJ IDEA Inspections" from RunAll and marked it
> as "~[Excluded]".
>
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 12:25 AM Vyacheslav Daradur 
> 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=buildTypeBranches
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 10:18 PM Vyacheslav Daradur 
> 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 
> 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 
> 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 

Re: Code inspection

[Nikolay Izhikov]

Hello, Petr.

The main issue here is - we, as a community, still think that issue with code 
style is "minor".
Personally, I think there is no "minor" issues with code style - we should 
force single code style as hard as we can.

I think we *must* fail entire build if there are code style issues.

В Вт, 23/04/2019 в 13:03 +0300, Vyacheslav Daradur пишет:
> > > Also I still strictly against adding checkstyle to project build as minor 
> > > issues in checkstyle should not be blocker for test run.
> 
> Me too.
> 
> Looks like everything works fine. Thanks! The only problem is long
> time of build ~10 minutes, because of dependencies resolving.
> 
> Maxim, please double check it.
> 
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 12:26 PM Petr Ivanov  wrote:
> > 
> > Vyacheslav, can you check this build please [1] if everything was ran as 
> > expected?
> > 
> > Also I still strictly against adding checkstyle to project build as minor 
> > issues in checkstyle should not be blocker for test run.
> > 
> > 
> > [1] 
> > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=3678000=IgniteTests24Java8_CheckCodeStyle=artifacts_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E#
> > 
> > 
> > > On 23 Apr 2019, at 11:59, Petr Ivanov  wrote:
> > > 
> > > I'll check it.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Also, please pass TC build for review next time and do not add to Run All 
> > > without it.
> > > 
> > > Thanks!
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > On 23 Apr 2019, at 11:53, Vyacheslav Daradur  
> > > > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 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  
> > > > 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=tree=debug=all=3677858&_focus=288
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On 23 Apr 2019, at 00:25, Vyacheslav Daradur  
> > > > > 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=buildTypeBranches
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 10:18 PM Vyacheslav Daradur 
> > > > >  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  
> > > > > 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 

Re: Code inspection

[Vyacheslav Daradur]

>> Also I still strictly against adding checkstyle to project build as minor 
>> issues in checkstyle should not be blocker for test run.

Me too.

Looks like everything works fine. Thanks! The only problem is long
time of build ~10 minutes, because of dependencies resolving.

Maxim, please double check it.

On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 12:26 PM Petr Ivanov  wrote:
>
> Vyacheslav, can you check this build please [1] if everything was ran as 
> expected?
>
> Also I still strictly against adding checkstyle to project build as minor 
> issues in checkstyle should not be blocker for test run.
>
>
> [1] 
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=3678000=IgniteTests24Java8_CheckCodeStyle=artifacts_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E#
>
>
> > On 23 Apr 2019, at 11:59, Petr Ivanov  wrote:
> >
> > I'll check it.
> >
> >
> > Also, please pass TC build for review next time and do not add to Run All 
> > without it.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> >
> >> On 23 Apr 2019, at 11:53, Vyacheslav Daradur  wrote:
> >>
> >> 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  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=tree=debug=all=3677858&_focus=288
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 23 Apr 2019, at 00:25, Vyacheslav Daradur  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=buildTypeBranches
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 10:18 PM Vyacheslav Daradur  
> >>> 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  
> >>> 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  
> >>> 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  
> >>> 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?
> >>>
> >>> 

Re: Code inspection

[Petr Ivanov]

Vyacheslav, can you check this build please [1] if everything was ran as 
expected?

Also I still strictly against adding checkstyle to project build as minor 
issues in checkstyle should not be blocker for test run.


[1] 
https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=3678000=IgniteTests24Java8_CheckCodeStyle=artifacts_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E#


> On 23 Apr 2019, at 11:59, Petr Ivanov  wrote:
> 
> I'll check it.
> 
> 
> Also, please pass TC build for review next time and do not add to Run All 
> without it.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
>> On 23 Apr 2019, at 11:53, Vyacheslav Daradur  wrote:
>> 
>> 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  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=tree=debug=all=3677858&_focus=288
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 23 Apr 2019, at 00:25, Vyacheslav Daradur  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=buildTypeBranches
>>> 
>>> On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 10:18 PM Vyacheslav Daradur  
>>> 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  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  
>>> 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  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  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 

Re: Code inspection

[Petr Ivanov]

I'll check it.


Also, please pass TC build for review next time and do not add to Run All 
without it.

Thanks!


> On 23 Apr 2019, at 11:53, Vyacheslav Daradur  wrote:
> 
> 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  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=tree=debug=all=3677858&_focus=288
>> 
>> 
>> On 23 Apr 2019, at 00:25, Vyacheslav Daradur  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=buildTypeBranches
>> 
>> On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 10:18 PM Vyacheslav Daradur  
>> 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  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  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  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  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 :
>> 
>> 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 :
>> 
>> 
>> Maxim,
>> 
>> As far as I 

Re: Code inspection

[Vyacheslav Daradur]

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  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=tree=debug=all=3677858&_focus=288
>
>
> On 23 Apr 2019, at 00:25, Vyacheslav Daradur  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=buildTypeBranches
>
> On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 10:18 PM Vyacheslav Daradur  
> 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  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  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  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  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 :
>
> 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 :
>
>
> 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. 

Re: Code inspection

[Petr Ivanov]

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=tree=debug=all=3677858&_focus=288
 



> On 23 Apr 2019, at 00:25, Vyacheslav Daradur  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=buildTypeBranches
> 
> On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 10:18 PM Vyacheslav Daradur  
> 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  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  
>>> 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  
 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  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 :
>> 
>>> 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 :
 
 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 

Re: Code inspection

[Vyacheslav Daradur]

Also, I excluded "IntelliJ IDEA Inspections" from RunAll and marked it
as "~[Excluded]".

On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 12:25 AM Vyacheslav Daradur  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=buildTypeBranches
>
> On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 10:18 PM Vyacheslav Daradur  
> 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  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  
> > > 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  
> > > > 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  
> > > > > 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 :
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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 :
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Maxim,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > As far as I understand your case, you want to fix all code 
> > > > > > > > > styles
> > > > > > > > 

Re: Code inspection

[Vyacheslav Daradur]

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=buildTypeBranches

On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 10:18 PM Vyacheslav Daradur  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  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  
> > 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  
> > > 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  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 :
> > > > >
> > > > > > 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 :
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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. 

Re: Code inspection

[Vyacheslav Daradur]

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  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  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  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  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 :
> > > >
> > > > > 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 :
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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 

Re: Code inspection

[Maxim Muzafarov]

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  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  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  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 :
> > >
> > > > 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 :
> > > > >
> > > > > 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 :
> > > > > >
> > > > > > +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 

Re: Code inspection

[Vyacheslav Daradur]

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  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  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 :
> >
> > > 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 :
> > > >
> > > > 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 :
> > > > >
> > > > > +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 :
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 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 

Re: Code inspection

[Maxim Muzafarov]

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  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 :
>
> > 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 :
> > >
> > > 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 :
> > > >
> > > > +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 :
> > > >>
> > > >> 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)

Re: Code inspection

[Павлухин Иван]

Dmitriy,

Benefits of using maven checkstyle plugin against IDEA-TC integration
were discussed above. IMHO there is a one crucial thing. IDEA-TC
integeration have been broken for a months without any good reason. We
cannot be sure that the same will not repeat again.

пт, 15 мар. 2019 г. в 19:19, Dmitriy Pavlov :
>
> 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 :
>
> > 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 :
> > >
> > > 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 :
> > > >
> > > > +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 :
> > > >>
> > > >> 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 

Re: Code inspection

[Dmitriy Pavlov]

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 :

> 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 :
> >
> > 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 :
> > >
> > > +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 :
> > >>
> > >> 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 

Re: Code inspection

[Павлухин Иван]

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 :
>
> 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 :
> >
> > +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 :
> >>
> >> 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  wrote:
> >> >
> >> 

Re: Code inspection

[Павлухин Иван]

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 :
>
> +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 :
>>
>> 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  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 

Re: Code inspection

[Nikolay Izhikov]

+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 :

> 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  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 :
> > >
> > > 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  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 

Re: Code inspection

[Maxim Muzafarov]

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  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 :
> >
> > 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  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 

Re: Code inspection

[Maxim Muzafarov]

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  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  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 :
> >
> > 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  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=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  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 

Re: Code inspection

[Maxim Muzafarov]

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  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=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  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 :
> >
> > 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 :
> >
> > > 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 :
> > > >
> > > > 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 :
> > > >
> > > > > 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 

Re: Code inspection

[Павлухин Иван]

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 :
>
> 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 :
>
> > 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 :
> > >
> > > 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 :
> > >
> > > > 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 :
> > > > >
> > > > > 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 

Re: Code inspection

[Nikolay Izhikov]

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 :

> 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 :
> >
> > 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 :
> >
> > > 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 :
> > > >
> > > > 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 

Re: Code inspection

[Павлухин Иван]

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 :
>
> 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 :
>
> > 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 :
> > >
> > > 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 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Actually, I dont see anything wrong with failing *compilation* task.
> 

Re: Code inspection

[Nikolay Izhikov]

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 :

> 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 :
> >
> > 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 
> 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 
> 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  >:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Petr, we should have 1 

Re: Code inspection

[Павлухин Иван]

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 :
>
> 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  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  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 :
> > > >>
> > > >> 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 
> > > 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.
> > > 

Re: Code inspection

[Maxim Muzafarov]

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  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  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 :
> > >>
> > >> 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 
> > 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 
> > 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 :
> > >>
> > >>> 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  > >:
> > 
> >  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 

Re: Code inspection

[Nikolay Izhikov]

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  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 :
> >>
> >> 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 
> 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 
> 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 :
> >>
> >>> 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  >:
> 
>  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
> 
> 
> 

Re: Code inspection

[Petr Ivanov]

I guess that was about failing build configuration with Checkstype, not 
compilation build itself.

> On 12 Feb 2019, at 18:03, Павлухин Иван  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 :
>> 
>> 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  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  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 :
>> 
>>> 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 :
 
 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 

Re: Code inspection

[Павлухин Иван]

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 :
>
> 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  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  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 :
> > >>>
> >  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 :
> > >
> > > 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} 

Re: Code inspection

[Nikolay Izhikov]

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  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  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 :
> >>>
>  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 :
> >
> > 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 

Re: Code inspection

[Petr Ivanov]

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  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  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 :
>>> 
 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 :
> 
> 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_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E=buildTypeStatusDiv
>> [2] https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/TW-58504
>> [3]
 
>> 

Re: Code inspection

[Nikolay Izhikov]

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  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 :
> >
> >> 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 :
> >>>
> >>> 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_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E=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 

Re: Code inspection

[Petr Ivanov]

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  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 :
> 
>> 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 :
>>> 
>>> 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_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E=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 

Re: Code inspection

[Nikolay Izhikov]

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 :

> 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 :
> >
> > 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_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E=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: 

Re: Code inspection

[Павлухин Иван]

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 :
>
> 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_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E=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

Re: Code inspection

[oignatenko]

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_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E=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/

Re: Code inspection

[Maxim Muzafarov]

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_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E=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  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  wrote:
> >
> > Investigating problem, stand by.
> >
> >
> >> On 18 Dec 2018, at 19:41, Dmitriy Pavlov  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
> >>
> >> пн, 17 дек. 2018 г. в 18:31, Andrey Mashenkov :
> >>
> >>> Maxim,
> >>>
> >>> Looks ok. Let's apply IGNITE-10682.
> >>>
> >>> All,
> >>>
> >>> Also, I'd like to publish idea.logs into artefacts by default.
> >>> This will give us more details for investigation in future if any failure
> >>> will occurs.
> >>> It will costs 1-10 kB.
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 3:21 PM Maxim Muzafarov 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  Dmitry,
> 
>  It seems to me that we have two independent issues here.
>  1. An `Unexpected error during build messages processing in TeamCity`
>  error message which is related to TC agent configuration. Suppose,
>  server.log will provide us more details about it. I have to access
>  there.
>  2. A new set of inspection rules was introduced in 2018+ IntelliJ IDEA
>  and they should be disabled in our ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml
>  configuration file. They are not fixed in the Apache Ignite project
>  code yet. I've prepared the issue [1] for it. Please, take a look.
> 
> 
>  Andrey,
> 
>  I've fixed disabled plugins file according to your suggestions. The
>  issue [2] is ready. I've re-run `Excluded [Inspections] Core Debug`
>  suite and the log details show me that now only 3 plugins are enabled:
>  IDEA CORE, Maven Integration, Properties Support. It seems to me that
>  it's correct.
> 
>  [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10709
>  [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10682
> 
>  On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 at 15:22, Dmitriy Pavlov  wrote:
> >
> > Folks,
> >
> > There is a strange error on TC
> >
> 
> >>> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=2556875=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore
> >
> > It appeared after TC update to the latest version.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Dmitry Pavlov
> >
> > пт, 14 дек. 2018 г. в 16:09, Andrey Mashenkov <
>  andrey.mashen...@gmail.com>:
> >
> >> Maxim,
> >>
> >> PR is incomplete. Some plugins should be disabled with different
>  id\name.
> >> Maven plugin shouldn't be disabled as Idea Inspector use it to use
>  Ignite
> >> project pom file.
> >>
> >> Please, find details in ticket.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 12:00 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> >> andrey.mashen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Maxim,
> >>>
> >>> Thanks, I'll check PR and let you know about results.
> >>>
> >>> For now, Inspections task execution time looks much better (15-22
>  min),
> >>> but fluctuation is still noticeable.
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 11:13 

Re: Code inspection

[Petr Ivanov]

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  wrote:
> 
> Investigating problem, stand by.
> 
> 
>> On 18 Dec 2018, at 19:41, Dmitriy Pavlov  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
>> 
>> пн, 17 дек. 2018 г. в 18:31, Andrey Mashenkov :
>> 
>>> Maxim,
>>> 
>>> Looks ok. Let's apply IGNITE-10682.
>>> 
>>> All,
>>> 
>>> Also, I'd like to publish idea.logs into artefacts by default.
>>> This will give us more details for investigation in future if any failure
>>> will occurs.
>>> It will costs 1-10 kB.
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 3:21 PM Maxim Muzafarov 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 Dmitry,
 
 It seems to me that we have two independent issues here.
 1. An `Unexpected error during build messages processing in TeamCity`
 error message which is related to TC agent configuration. Suppose,
 server.log will provide us more details about it. I have to access
 there.
 2. A new set of inspection rules was introduced in 2018+ IntelliJ IDEA
 and they should be disabled in our ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml
 configuration file. They are not fixed in the Apache Ignite project
 code yet. I've prepared the issue [1] for it. Please, take a look.
 
 
 Andrey,
 
 I've fixed disabled plugins file according to your suggestions. The
 issue [2] is ready. I've re-run `Excluded [Inspections] Core Debug`
 suite and the log details show me that now only 3 plugins are enabled:
 IDEA CORE, Maven Integration, Properties Support. It seems to me that
 it's correct.
 
 [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10709
 [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10682
 
 On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 at 15:22, Dmitriy Pavlov  wrote:
> 
> Folks,
> 
> There is a strange error on TC
> 
 
>>> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=2556875=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore
> 
> It appeared after TC update to the latest version.
> 
> Sincerely,
> Dmitry Pavlov
> 
> пт, 14 дек. 2018 г. в 16:09, Andrey Mashenkov <
 andrey.mashen...@gmail.com>:
> 
>> Maxim,
>> 
>> PR is incomplete. Some plugins should be disabled with different
 id\name.
>> Maven plugin shouldn't be disabled as Idea Inspector use it to use
 Ignite
>> project pom file.
>> 
>> Please, find details in ticket.
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 12:00 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
>> andrey.mashen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Maxim,
>>> 
>>> Thanks, I'll check PR and let you know about results.
>>> 
>>> For now, Inspections task execution time looks much better (15-22
 min),
>>> but fluctuation is still noticeable.
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 11:13 AM Maxim Muzafarov <
>>> maxmu...@gmail.com
> 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 Andrey,
 
 Thanks! I've consulted with the IntelliJ IDEA source code and
>>> found
 how this disabled plugins file should look like. I've created a
>>> new
 issue [1] and prepared PR [2] with the set of disabled plugins
 (maybe
 not complete set). I don't have access to change corresponding
 `~Excluded [Inspections] Core Debug` test suite properties.
 Can we test this PR?
 
 [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10682
 [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5666
 On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 at 17:35, Andrey Mashenkov
  wrote:
> 
> Maxim,
> 
> Idea has a file in config directory
>>> ./config/disabled_plugins.txt
 ,
>> you
 can easily find it at you local machine.
> Teamcity Inspections runner has an option "Disabled plugins"
>>> where
 disabled_plugins.txt file content can be set.
> 
> So, looks like we can disable useless plugins.
> But I'm not expert and can't suggest changes we can safely
>>> apply.
> 
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 4:59 PM Maxim Muzafarov <
 maxmu...@gmail.com>
 wrote:
>> 
>> 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 

Re: Code inspection

[Petr Ivanov]

Investigating problem, stand by.


> On 18 Dec 2018, at 19:41, Dmitriy Pavlov  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
> 
> пн, 17 дек. 2018 г. в 18:31, Andrey Mashenkov :
> 
>> Maxim,
>> 
>> Looks ok. Let's apply IGNITE-10682.
>> 
>> All,
>> 
>> Also, I'd like to publish idea.logs into artefacts by default.
>> This will give us more details for investigation in future if any failure
>> will occurs.
>> It will costs 1-10 kB.
>> 
>> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 3:21 PM Maxim Muzafarov 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Dmitry,
>>> 
>>> It seems to me that we have two independent issues here.
>>> 1. An `Unexpected error during build messages processing in TeamCity`
>>> error message which is related to TC agent configuration. Suppose,
>>> server.log will provide us more details about it. I have to access
>>> there.
>>> 2. A new set of inspection rules was introduced in 2018+ IntelliJ IDEA
>>> and they should be disabled in our ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml
>>> configuration file. They are not fixed in the Apache Ignite project
>>> code yet. I've prepared the issue [1] for it. Please, take a look.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Andrey,
>>> 
>>> I've fixed disabled plugins file according to your suggestions. The
>>> issue [2] is ready. I've re-run `Excluded [Inspections] Core Debug`
>>> suite and the log details show me that now only 3 plugins are enabled:
>>> IDEA CORE, Maven Integration, Properties Support. It seems to me that
>>> it's correct.
>>> 
>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10709
>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10682
>>> 
>>> On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 at 15:22, Dmitriy Pavlov  wrote:
 
 Folks,
 
 There is a strange error on TC
 
>>> 
>> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=2556875=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore
 
 It appeared after TC update to the latest version.
 
 Sincerely,
 Dmitry Pavlov
 
 пт, 14 дек. 2018 г. в 16:09, Andrey Mashenkov <
>>> andrey.mashen...@gmail.com>:
 
> Maxim,
> 
> PR is incomplete. Some plugins should be disabled with different
>>> id\name.
> Maven plugin shouldn't be disabled as Idea Inspector use it to use
>>> Ignite
> project pom file.
> 
> Please, find details in ticket.
> 
> 
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 12:00 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> andrey.mashen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Maxim,
>> 
>> Thanks, I'll check PR and let you know about results.
>> 
>> For now, Inspections task execution time looks much better (15-22
>>> min),
>> but fluctuation is still noticeable.
>> 
>> On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 11:13 AM Maxim Muzafarov <
>> maxmu...@gmail.com
 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Andrey,
>>> 
>>> Thanks! I've consulted with the IntelliJ IDEA source code and
>> found
>>> how this disabled plugins file should look like. I've created a
>> new
>>> issue [1] and prepared PR [2] with the set of disabled plugins
>>> (maybe
>>> not complete set). I don't have access to change corresponding
>>> `~Excluded [Inspections] Core Debug` test suite properties.
>>> Can we test this PR?
>>> 
>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10682
>>> [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5666
>>> On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 at 17:35, Andrey Mashenkov
>>>  wrote:
 
 Maxim,
 
 Idea has a file in config directory
>> ./config/disabled_plugins.txt
>>> ,
> you
>>> can easily find it at you local machine.
 Teamcity Inspections runner has an option "Disabled plugins"
>> where
>>> disabled_plugins.txt file content can be set.
 
 So, looks like we can disable useless plugins.
 But I'm not expert and can't suggest changes we can safely
>> apply.
 
 On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 4:59 PM Maxim Muzafarov <
>>> maxmu...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
> 
> 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
>  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 

Re: Code inspection

[Dmitriy Pavlov]

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

пн, 17 дек. 2018 г. в 18:31, Andrey Mashenkov :

> Maxim,
>
> Looks ok. Let's apply IGNITE-10682.
>
> All,
>
> Also, I'd like to publish idea.logs into artefacts by default.
> This will give us more details for investigation in future if any failure
> will occurs.
> It will costs 1-10 kB.
>
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 3:21 PM Maxim Muzafarov 
> wrote:
>
> > Dmitry,
> >
> > It seems to me that we have two independent issues here.
> > 1. An `Unexpected error during build messages processing in TeamCity`
> > error message which is related to TC agent configuration. Suppose,
> > server.log will provide us more details about it. I have to access
> > there.
> > 2. A new set of inspection rules was introduced in 2018+ IntelliJ IDEA
> > and they should be disabled in our ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml
> > configuration file. They are not fixed in the Apache Ignite project
> > code yet. I've prepared the issue [1] for it. Please, take a look.
> >
> >
> > Andrey,
> >
> > I've fixed disabled plugins file according to your suggestions. The
> > issue [2] is ready. I've re-run `Excluded [Inspections] Core Debug`
> > suite and the log details show me that now only 3 plugins are enabled:
> > IDEA CORE, Maven Integration, Properties Support. It seems to me that
> > it's correct.
> >
> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10709
> > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10682
> >
> > On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 at 15:22, Dmitriy Pavlov  wrote:
> > >
> > > Folks,
> > >
> > > There is a strange error on TC
> > >
> >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=2556875=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore
> > >
> > > It appeared after TC update to the latest version.
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > > Dmitry Pavlov
> > >
> > > пт, 14 дек. 2018 г. в 16:09, Andrey Mashenkov <
> > andrey.mashen...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > > Maxim,
> > > >
> > > > PR is incomplete. Some plugins should be disabled with different
> > id\name.
> > > > Maven plugin shouldn't be disabled as Idea Inspector use it to use
> > Ignite
> > > > project pom file.
> > > >
> > > > Please, find details in ticket.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 12:00 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > andrey.mashen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Maxim,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks, I'll check PR and let you know about results.
> > > > >
> > > > > For now, Inspections task execution time looks much better (15-22
> > min),
> > > > > but fluctuation is still noticeable.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 11:13 AM Maxim Muzafarov <
> maxmu...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Andrey,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thanks! I've consulted with the IntelliJ IDEA source code and
> found
> > > > >> how this disabled plugins file should look like. I've created a
> new
> > > > >> issue [1] and prepared PR [2] with the set of disabled plugins
> > (maybe
> > > > >> not complete set). I don't have access to change corresponding
> > > > >> `~Excluded [Inspections] Core Debug` test suite properties.
> > > > >> Can we test this PR?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10682
> > > > >> [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5666
> > > > >> On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 at 17:35, Andrey Mashenkov
> > > > >>  wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Maxim,
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Idea has a file in config directory
> ./config/disabled_plugins.txt
> > ,
> > > > you
> > > > >> can easily find it at you local machine.
> > > > >> > Teamcity Inspections runner has an option "Disabled plugins"
> where
> > > > >> disabled_plugins.txt file content can be set.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > So, looks like we can disable useless plugins.
> > > > >> > But I'm not expert and can't suggest changes we can safely
> apply.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 4:59 PM Maxim Muzafarov <
> > maxmu...@gmail.com>
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> 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
> > > > >> >>  wrote:
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > Maxim,
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > It looks like we can't make logs more verbose due to possible
> > bug,
> > > > 

Re: Code inspection

[Andrey Mashenkov]

Maxim,

Looks ok. Let's apply IGNITE-10682.

All,

Also, I'd like to publish idea.logs into artefacts by default.
This will give us more details for investigation in future if any failure
will occurs.
It will costs 1-10 kB.

On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 3:21 PM Maxim Muzafarov  wrote:

> Dmitry,
>
> It seems to me that we have two independent issues here.
> 1. An `Unexpected error during build messages processing in TeamCity`
> error message which is related to TC agent configuration. Suppose,
> server.log will provide us more details about it. I have to access
> there.
> 2. A new set of inspection rules was introduced in 2018+ IntelliJ IDEA
> and they should be disabled in our ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml
> configuration file. They are not fixed in the Apache Ignite project
> code yet. I've prepared the issue [1] for it. Please, take a look.
>
>
> Andrey,
>
> I've fixed disabled plugins file according to your suggestions. The
> issue [2] is ready. I've re-run `Excluded [Inspections] Core Debug`
> suite and the log details show me that now only 3 plugins are enabled:
> IDEA CORE, Maven Integration, Properties Support. It seems to me that
> it's correct.
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10709
> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10682
>
> On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 at 15:22, Dmitriy Pavlov  wrote:
> >
> > Folks,
> >
> > There is a strange error on TC
> >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=2556875=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore
> >
> > It appeared after TC update to the latest version.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Dmitry Pavlov
> >
> > пт, 14 дек. 2018 г. в 16:09, Andrey Mashenkov <
> andrey.mashen...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > Maxim,
> > >
> > > PR is incomplete. Some plugins should be disabled with different
> id\name.
> > > Maven plugin shouldn't be disabled as Idea Inspector use it to use
> Ignite
> > > project pom file.
> > >
> > > Please, find details in ticket.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 12:00 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > andrey.mashen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Maxim,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks, I'll check PR and let you know about results.
> > > >
> > > > For now, Inspections task execution time looks much better (15-22
> min),
> > > > but fluctuation is still noticeable.
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 11:13 AM Maxim Muzafarov  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Andrey,
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks! I've consulted with the IntelliJ IDEA source code and found
> > > >> how this disabled plugins file should look like. I've created a new
> > > >> issue [1] and prepared PR [2] with the set of disabled plugins
> (maybe
> > > >> not complete set). I don't have access to change corresponding
> > > >> `~Excluded [Inspections] Core Debug` test suite properties.
> > > >> Can we test this PR?
> > > >>
> > > >> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10682
> > > >> [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5666
> > > >> On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 at 17:35, Andrey Mashenkov
> > > >>  wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Maxim,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Idea has a file in config directory ./config/disabled_plugins.txt
> ,
> > > you
> > > >> can easily find it at you local machine.
> > > >> > Teamcity Inspections runner has an option "Disabled plugins" where
> > > >> disabled_plugins.txt file content can be set.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > So, looks like we can disable useless plugins.
> > > >> > But I'm not expert and can't suggest changes we can safely apply.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 4:59 PM Maxim Muzafarov <
> maxmu...@gmail.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> 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
> > > >> >>  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]
> > > >>
> > >
> 

Re: Code inspection

[Maxim Muzafarov]

Dmitry,

It seems to me that we have two independent issues here.
1. An `Unexpected error during build messages processing in TeamCity`
error message which is related to TC agent configuration. Suppose,
server.log will provide us more details about it. I have to access
there.
2. A new set of inspection rules was introduced in 2018+ IntelliJ IDEA
and they should be disabled in our ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml
configuration file. They are not fixed in the Apache Ignite project
code yet. I've prepared the issue [1] for it. Please, take a look.


Andrey,

I've fixed disabled plugins file according to your suggestions. The
issue [2] is ready. I've re-run `Excluded [Inspections] Core Debug`
suite and the log details show me that now only 3 plugins are enabled:
IDEA CORE, Maven Integration, Properties Support. It seems to me that
it's correct.

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10709
[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10682

On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 at 15:22, Dmitriy Pavlov  wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
> There is a strange error on TC
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=2556875=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore
>
> It appeared after TC update to the latest version.
>
> Sincerely,
> Dmitry Pavlov
>
> пт, 14 дек. 2018 г. в 16:09, Andrey Mashenkov :
>
> > Maxim,
> >
> > PR is incomplete. Some plugins should be disabled with different id\name.
> > Maven plugin shouldn't be disabled as Idea Inspector use it to use Ignite
> > project pom file.
> >
> > Please, find details in ticket.
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 12:00 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > andrey.mashen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Maxim,
> > >
> > > Thanks, I'll check PR and let you know about results.
> > >
> > > For now, Inspections task execution time looks much better (15-22 min),
> > > but fluctuation is still noticeable.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 11:13 AM Maxim Muzafarov 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Andrey,
> > >>
> > >> Thanks! I've consulted with the IntelliJ IDEA source code and found
> > >> how this disabled plugins file should look like. I've created a new
> > >> issue [1] and prepared PR [2] with the set of disabled plugins (maybe
> > >> not complete set). I don't have access to change corresponding
> > >> `~Excluded [Inspections] Core Debug` test suite properties.
> > >> Can we test this PR?
> > >>
> > >> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10682
> > >> [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5666
> > >> On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 at 17:35, Andrey Mashenkov
> > >>  wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > Maxim,
> > >> >
> > >> > Idea has a file in config directory ./config/disabled_plugins.txt ,
> > you
> > >> can easily find it at you local machine.
> > >> > Teamcity Inspections runner has an option "Disabled plugins" where
> > >> disabled_plugins.txt file content can be set.
> > >> >
> > >> > So, looks like we can disable useless plugins.
> > >> > But I'm not expert and can't suggest changes we can safely apply.
> > >> >
> > >> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 4:59 PM Maxim Muzafarov 
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> 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
> > >> >>  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=IgniteTests24Java8_ExcludedInspections2=artifacts
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 3:19 PM Dmitriy Pavlov  > >
> > >> 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 

Re: Code inspection

[Dmitriy Pavlov]

Folks,

There is a strange error on TC
https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=2556875=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore

It appeared after TC update to the latest version.

Sincerely,
Dmitry Pavlov

пт, 14 дек. 2018 г. в 16:09, Andrey Mashenkov :

> Maxim,
>
> PR is incomplete. Some plugins should be disabled with different id\name.
> Maven plugin shouldn't be disabled as Idea Inspector use it to use Ignite
> project pom file.
>
> Please, find details in ticket.
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 12:00 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> andrey.mashen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Maxim,
> >
> > Thanks, I'll check PR and let you know about results.
> >
> > For now, Inspections task execution time looks much better (15-22 min),
> > but fluctuation is still noticeable.
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 11:13 AM Maxim Muzafarov 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Andrey,
> >>
> >> Thanks! I've consulted with the IntelliJ IDEA source code and found
> >> how this disabled plugins file should look like. I've created a new
> >> issue [1] and prepared PR [2] with the set of disabled plugins (maybe
> >> not complete set). I don't have access to change corresponding
> >> `~Excluded [Inspections] Core Debug` test suite properties.
> >> Can we test this PR?
> >>
> >> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10682
> >> [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5666
> >> On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 at 17:35, Andrey Mashenkov
> >>  wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Maxim,
> >> >
> >> > Idea has a file in config directory ./config/disabled_plugins.txt ,
> you
> >> can easily find it at you local machine.
> >> > Teamcity Inspections runner has an option "Disabled plugins" where
> >> disabled_plugins.txt file content can be set.
> >> >
> >> > So, looks like we can disable useless plugins.
> >> > But I'm not expert and can't suggest changes we can safely apply.
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 4:59 PM Maxim Muzafarov 
> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> 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
> >> >>  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=IgniteTests24Java8_ExcludedInspections2=artifacts
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 3:19 PM Dmitriy Pavlov  >
> >> 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), 

Re: Code inspection

[Andrey Mashenkov]

Maxim,

PR is incomplete. Some plugins should be disabled with different id\name.
Maven plugin shouldn't be disabled as Idea Inspector use it to use Ignite
project pom file.

Please, find details in ticket.


On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 12:00 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
andrey.mashen...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Maxim,
>
> Thanks, I'll check PR and let you know about results.
>
> For now, Inspections task execution time looks much better (15-22 min),
> but fluctuation is still noticeable.
>
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 11:13 AM Maxim Muzafarov 
> wrote:
>
>> Andrey,
>>
>> Thanks! I've consulted with the IntelliJ IDEA source code and found
>> how this disabled plugins file should look like. I've created a new
>> issue [1] and prepared PR [2] with the set of disabled plugins (maybe
>> not complete set). I don't have access to change corresponding
>> `~Excluded [Inspections] Core Debug` test suite properties.
>> Can we test this PR?
>>
>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10682
>> [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5666
>> On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 at 17:35, Andrey Mashenkov
>>  wrote:
>> >
>> > Maxim,
>> >
>> > Idea has a file in config directory ./config/disabled_plugins.txt , you
>> can easily find it at you local machine.
>> > Teamcity Inspections runner has an option "Disabled plugins" where
>> disabled_plugins.txt file content can be set.
>> >
>> > So, looks like we can disable useless plugins.
>> > But I'm not expert and can't suggest changes we can safely apply.
>> >
>> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 4:59 PM Maxim Muzafarov 
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> 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
>> >>  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=IgniteTests24Java8_ExcludedInspections2=artifacts
>> >> >
>> >> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 3:19 PM Dmitriy Pavlov 
>> 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 

Re: Code inspection

[Andrey Mashenkov]

Maxim,

Thanks, I'll check PR and let you know about results.

For now, Inspections task execution time looks much better (15-22 min), but
fluctuation is still noticeable.

On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 11:13 AM Maxim Muzafarov  wrote:

> Andrey,
>
> Thanks! I've consulted with the IntelliJ IDEA source code and found
> how this disabled plugins file should look like. I've created a new
> issue [1] and prepared PR [2] with the set of disabled plugins (maybe
> not complete set). I don't have access to change corresponding
> `~Excluded [Inspections] Core Debug` test suite properties.
> Can we test this PR?
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10682
> [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5666
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 at 17:35, Andrey Mashenkov
>  wrote:
> >
> > Maxim,
> >
> > Idea has a file in config directory ./config/disabled_plugins.txt , you
> can easily find it at you local machine.
> > Teamcity Inspections runner has an option "Disabled plugins" where
> disabled_plugins.txt file content can be set.
> >
> > So, looks like we can disable useless plugins.
> > But I'm not expert and can't suggest changes we can safely apply.
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 4:59 PM Maxim Muzafarov 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> 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
> >>  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=IgniteTests24Java8_ExcludedInspections2=artifacts
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 3:19 PM Dmitriy Pavlov 
> 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 

Re: Code inspection

[Maxim Muzafarov]

Andrey,

Thanks! I've consulted with the IntelliJ IDEA source code and found
how this disabled plugins file should look like. I've created a new
issue [1] and prepared PR [2] with the set of disabled plugins (maybe
not complete set). I don't have access to change corresponding
`~Excluded [Inspections] Core Debug` test suite properties.
Can we test this PR?

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10682
[2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5666
On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 at 17:35, Andrey Mashenkov
 wrote:
>
> Maxim,
>
> Idea has a file in config directory ./config/disabled_plugins.txt , you can 
> easily find it at you local machine.
> Teamcity Inspections runner has an option "Disabled plugins" where 
> disabled_plugins.txt file content can be set.
>
> So, looks like we can disable useless plugins.
> But I'm not expert and can't suggest changes we can safely apply.
>
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 4:59 PM Maxim Muzafarov  wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>  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=IgniteTests24Java8_ExcludedInspections2=artifacts
>> >
>> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 3:19 PM Dmitriy Pavlov  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 
>> >> :
>> >>
>> >> > 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
>> >> > 

Re: Code inspection

[Andrey Mashenkov]

Maxim,

Idea has a file in config directory ./config/disabled_plugins.txt , you can
easily find it at you local machine.
Teamcity Inspections runner has an option "Disabled plugins" where
disabled_plugins.txt file content can be set.

So, looks like we can disable useless plugins.
But I'm not expert and can't suggest changes we can safely apply.

On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 4:59 PM Maxim Muzafarov  wrote:

> 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
>  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=IgniteTests24Java8_ExcludedInspections2=artifacts
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 3:19 PM Dmitriy Pavlov 
> 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
> >> >
> 

Re: Code inspection

[Maxim Muzafarov]

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
 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=IgniteTests24Java8_ExcludedInspections2=artifacts
>
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 3:19 PM Dmitriy Pavlov  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 :
>>
>> > 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  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 

Re: Code inspection

[Andrey Mashenkov]

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=IgniteTests24Java8_ExcludedInspections2=artifacts

On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 3:19 PM Dmitriy Pavlov  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  >:
>
> > 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 
> 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 

Re: Code inspection

[Dmitriy Pavlov]

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 :

> 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  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 

Re: Code inspection

[Andrey Mashenkov]

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  wrote:

> Sure, let's apply. I hope all TC agents may handle 4G heap.
>
> чт, 13 дек. 2018 г. в 12:54, Andrey Mashenkov  >:
>
> > 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 
> > 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
> > >  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 

Re: Code inspection

[Dmitriy Pavlov]

Sure, let's apply. I hope all TC agents may handle 4G heap.

чт, 13 дек. 2018 г. в 12:54, Andrey Mashenkov :

> 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 
> 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
> >  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 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm totally with you in this decision, let's move the file.
> > > >
> > > > вт, 27 нояб. 2018 г. в 16:24, Maxim Muzafarov :
> > > >
> > > > > 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  >
> > > > 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_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E=buildTypeStatusDiv
> > > > > > > > On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 at 17:55, Maxim Muzafarov <
> > maxmu...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > 

Re: Code inspection

[Andrey Mashenkov]

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 
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
>  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 
> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm totally with you in this decision, let's move the file.
> > >
> > > вт, 27 нояб. 2018 г. в 16:24, Maxim Muzafarov :
> > >
> > > > 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 
> > > 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_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E=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 

Re: Code inspection

[Vyacheslav Daradur]

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
 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  wrote:
>
> > I'm totally with you in this decision, let's move the file.
> >
> > вт, 27 нояб. 2018 г. в 16:24, Maxim Muzafarov :
> >
> > > 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 
> > 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 
> > > > > 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_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E=buildTypeStatusDiv
> > > > > > On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 at 17:55, Maxim Muzafarov 
> > > > > 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 

Re: Code inspection

[Andrey Mashenkov]

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  wrote:

> I'm totally with you in this decision, let's move the file.
>
> вт, 27 нояб. 2018 г. в 16:24, Maxim Muzafarov :
>
> > 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 
> 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 
> > > > 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_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E=buildTypeStatusDiv
> > > > > On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 at 17:55, Maxim Muzafarov 
> > > > 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 

Re: Code inspection

[Dmitriy Pavlov]

I'm totally with you in this decision, let's move the file.

вт, 27 нояб. 2018 г. в 16:24, Maxim Muzafarov :

> 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  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 
> > > 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_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E=buildTypeStatusDiv
> > > > On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 at 17:55, Maxim Muzafarov 
> > > 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  >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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.
> > >
>

Re: Code inspection

[Maxim Muzafarov]

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  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 
> > 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_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E=buildTypeStatusDiv
> > > On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 at 17:55, Maxim Muzafarov 
> > 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 
> > 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 :
> > > > >
> > > > > > 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.
> >

Re: Code inspection

[Nikolay Izhikov]

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 
> 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_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E=buildTypeStatusDiv
> > On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 at 17:55, Maxim Muzafarov 
> 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 
> 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 :
> > > >
> > > > > 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.
>

Re: Code inspection

[Vyacheslav Daradur]

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  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_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E=buildTypeStatusDiv
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 at 17:55, Maxim Muzafarov  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  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 :
> > >
> > > > 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.

Re: Code inspection

[Maxim Muzafarov]

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_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E=buildTypeStatusDiv
On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 at 17:55, Maxim Muzafarov  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  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 :
> >
> > > 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
> > >

Re: Code inspection

[Maxim Muzafarov]

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  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 :
>
> > 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
> >

Re: Code inspection

[Dmitriy Pavlov]

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 :

> 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
>

Re: Code inspection

[Yakov Zhdanov]

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

Re: Code inspection

[Maxim Muzafarov]

Pert,

> As new way of testing code, this process will take it’s time to become
common, and then there will be no obsolete branches.

I tend to agree with you. Let's stabilize the solution first.


Yakov,

> Maxim, what are our next steps? Can we add check for
> - line length
> - indents (tabs vs spaces)

I'd like to focus on the ignite-core module first. I will prepare the short
list of first-priority inspections to enable and we will discuss it here.
After `Inspection:Core` stabilization and the discussion of proposed rules,
I will file new issues to do. Rules you mention is doable to enable.

> This may require some efforts (will it and how much?), but can we add
check
> for:
> - log messages structure
> - log.warn() vs U.warn()
> - abbreviations for local variables and fields.

I will try to find a simple solution for Ignite-specific
code-style requirements.
As for the abbreviations community decide to make them not mandatory [1].

> Can this be installed locally by every contributor to check the code?
> Can we add this to setup steps we have on wiki?

They are already mentioned in the `Coding Guidelines` community wiki page
[2].
This ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml configuration added only for the run
with TC and contains
enabled only some rules of original idea\ignite_inspections.xml
configuration.

[1]
http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Abbreviation-code-style-requirement-tp36605.html
[2]
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Coding+Guidelines#CodingGuidelines-C.CodeInspection


On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 17:51 Petr Ivanov  wrote:

> Also, let me note that currently only modules/core/** is under inspection.
> And in spite of the fact that core is the “heaviest" module in project. it
> seems that adding new inspections should be 2-way: new inspections and new
> modules (builds).
>
>
> > On 26 Oct 2018, at 17:41, Yakov Zhdanov  wrote:
> >
> > Agree with Petr.
> >
> > Maxim, what are our next steps? Can we add check for
> > - line length
> > - indents (tabs vs spaces)
>
> Should not we start adding new inspections after current errors all have
> been eliminated?
>
>
> >
> > This may require some efforts (will it and how much?), but can we add
> check
> > for:
> > - log messages structure
> > - log.warn() vs U.warn()
> > - abbreviations for local variables and fields.
> >
> > And last question
> >
> >> - the new configuration ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml added to PR;
> >
> > Can this be installed locally by every contributor to check the code? Can
> > we add this to setup steps we have on wiki?
> >
> > --Yakov
>
> --
--
Maxim Muzafarov

Re: Code inspection

[Petr Ivanov]

Also, let me note that currently only modules/core/** is under inspection.
And in spite of the fact that core is the “heaviest" module in project. it 
seems that adding new inspections should be 2-way: new inspections and new 
modules (builds).


> On 26 Oct 2018, at 17:41, Yakov Zhdanov  wrote:
> 
> Agree with Petr.
> 
> Maxim, what are our next steps? Can we add check for
> - line length
> - indents (tabs vs spaces)

Should not we start adding new inspections after current errors all have been 
eliminated?


> 
> This may require some efforts (will it and how much?), but can we add check
> for:
> - log messages structure
> - log.warn() vs U.warn()
> - abbreviations for local variables and fields.
> 
> And last question
> 
>> - the new configuration ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml added to PR;
> 
> Can this be installed locally by every contributor to check the code? Can
> we add this to setup steps we have on wiki?
> 
> --Yakov

Re: Code inspection

[Yakov Zhdanov]

Agree with Petr.

Maxim, what are our next steps? Can we add check for
- line length
- indents (tabs vs spaces)

This may require some efforts (will it and how much?), but can we add check
for:
- log messages structure
- log.warn() vs U.warn()
- abbreviations for local variables and fields.

And last question

> - the new configuration ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml added to PR;

Can this be installed locally by every contributor to check the code? Can
we add this to setup steps we have on wiki?

--Yakov

Re: Code inspection

[Petr Ivanov]

> On 26 Oct 2018, at 12:02, Maxim Muzafarov  wrote:
> 
> Petr,
> 
>> Disclaimer: currently, on branches with no inspections file there is
> default inspections file with all inspections turned off
> 
> I'd suggest another approach:
> - we should use the default inspection configuration file only for old
> release branches like (2.5, 2.6 etc.);

That’s exactly what was meant.


> - the other branches should merge the latest changes from the master
> branch and fix all local issues according to configured inspection rules;

There is no easy way to distinguish obsolete branches from old release branch.
Considering speed of changes applied to master branch, all branches either way 
will be updated to master soon.


> 
> The other situations may lead us to new inspection issues come from merged
> obsolete PRs.

Also I really do not see any problem with that due to new functionality of such 
inspections and their influence on Test Run at all.
As new way of testing code, this process will take it’s time to become common, 
and then there will be no obsolete branches.


> 
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 11:53 Sergey Antonov 
> wrote:
> 
>> Hello, Maxim!
>> 
>> Good job!
>> 
>> пт, 26 окт. 2018 г. в 0:47, Maxim Muzafarov :
>> 
>>> Igniters,
>>> 
>>> The new `Inspections: Core` suite [2] configured on TeamCity (pass
>>> successfully with - Inspections total: 0, errors: 0 ).
>>> The next rules are enabled for this suite:
>>> - `Missorted modifiers`;
>>> - `'size() == 0' replaceable with 'isEmpty()'`;
>>> - `Add missing @Override annotation`;
>>> - `Fix unused imports`;
>>> 
>>> Let's incule it to the `Run::All` group on TC, so we will check these
>> rules
>>> automatically for each PR.
>>> Any objections?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Talking about the details,
>>> 
>>> - the issue [1] with adding an inspections configuration for TC have PA
>>> status;
>>> - the new configuration ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml added to PR;
>>> - four rules which are already fixed in the master branch enabled in
>>> config;
>>> - the `Inspections:Core` suite configured to use the inspections
>>> configuration from the local branch;
>>> - the example `how to use inspections from the command line` added.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Petr, Nikolay,
>>> 
>>> Thank you for your support!
>>> 
>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9983
>>> [2]
>>> 
>>> 
>> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore_IgniteTests24Java8=pull%2F5059%2Fhead=buildTypeStatusDiv
>>> [3]
>>> 
>>> 
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9983?focusedCommentId=16662323=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-16662323
>>> 
>>> On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 at 19:16 Nikolay Izhikov 
>> wrote:
>>> 
 Hello, Maxim.
 
 +1 from me.
 
 I vote to enable static inspections for the Ignite codebase.
 Thank you for that contributions!
 
 В Вт, 23/10/2018 в 19:09 +0300, Maxim Muzafarov пишет:
> Igniters,
> 
> I've fixed some issues according to the inspections.xml
>> configuration:
> - `Missorted modifiers`;
> - `'size() == 0' replaceable with 'isEmpty()'`;
> - `Add missing @Override annotation`;
> These one have `In progress` state:
> - `Fix unused imports`;
> - `Remove unnecessary @SuppressWarnings annotation`;
> 
> The list of issues related to the current Code Inspections changes
>> can
>>> be
> found [1]
> with using label `inspections`. So, to move forward and not lose
>>> current
> changes I
> propose to:
> - Create the new configuration idea\ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml
>> (I
> will file a new issue for it);
> - Tune `Inspections: Core` Suite to use this configuration profile
>> (It
> will run with each PR);
> - In the case with fixing a new inspection rule enable it this
 inspection
> configuration.
> 
> This will allow us to move forward in small steps and at some point
>> of
 time
> in future we will switch
> this ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml with the
> default ignite_inspections.xml.
> 
> Thoughts?
> Pert Ivanov, will you help to tune `Inspections: Core` suite?
> 
> [1]
> 
 
>>> 
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9923?jql=project%20%3D%20Ignite%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20inspections
> 
> On Sat, 25 Aug 2018 at 00:54 Dmitriy Pavlov 
 wrote:
> 
>> IntelliJ Idea shows missing @Override annotation on my
>> installation.
 Not
>> sure it comes from our inspection or not.
>> 
>> Anyway, count on me.
>> 
>> пт, 24 авг. 2018 г. в 9:25, Maxim Muzafarov :
>> 
>>> Folks,
>>> 
>>> I think we can make a small step further with Ignite Inspections.
>>> 
>>> I've created these tickets [1], [2] for myself according to
 previously
>>> added
>>> `idea/ignite_inspections.xml` and I plan to complete them.
>>> 
>>> Who will help me with review and merge?
>>> 

Re: Code inspection

[Maxim Muzafarov]

Petr,

> Disclaimer: currently, on branches with no inspections file there is
default inspections file with all inspections turned off

I'd suggest another approach:
 - we should use the default inspection configuration file only for old
release branches like (2.5, 2.6 etc.);
 - the other branches should merge the latest changes from the master
branch and fix all local issues according to configured inspection rules;

The other situations may lead us to new inspection issues come from merged
obsolete PRs.

On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 11:53 Sergey Antonov 
wrote:

> Hello, Maxim!
>
> Good job!
>
> пт, 26 окт. 2018 г. в 0:47, Maxim Muzafarov :
>
> > Igniters,
> >
> > The new `Inspections: Core` suite [2] configured on TeamCity (pass
> > successfully with - Inspections total: 0, errors: 0 ).
> > The next rules are enabled for this suite:
> >  - `Missorted modifiers`;
> >  - `'size() == 0' replaceable with 'isEmpty()'`;
> >  - `Add missing @Override annotation`;
> >  - `Fix unused imports`;
> >
> > Let's incule it to the `Run::All` group on TC, so we will check these
> rules
> > automatically for each PR.
> > Any objections?
> >
> >
> > Talking about the details,
> >
> > - the issue [1] with adding an inspections configuration for TC have PA
> > status;
> > - the new configuration ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml added to PR;
> > - four rules which are already fixed in the master branch enabled in
> > config;
> > - the `Inspections:Core` suite configured to use the inspections
> > configuration from the local branch;
> > - the example `how to use inspections from the command line` added.
> >
> >
> > Petr, Nikolay,
> >
> > Thank you for your support!
> >
> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9983
> > [2]
> >
> >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore_IgniteTests24Java8=pull%2F5059%2Fhead=buildTypeStatusDiv
> > [3]
> >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9983?focusedCommentId=16662323=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-16662323
> >
> > On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 at 19:16 Nikolay Izhikov 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello, Maxim.
> > >
> > > +1 from me.
> > >
> > > I vote to enable static inspections for the Ignite codebase.
> > > Thank you for that contributions!
> > >
> > > В Вт, 23/10/2018 в 19:09 +0300, Maxim Muzafarov пишет:
> > > > Igniters,
> > > >
> > > > I've fixed some issues according to the inspections.xml
> configuration:
> > > >  - `Missorted modifiers`;
> > > >  - `'size() == 0' replaceable with 'isEmpty()'`;
> > > >  - `Add missing @Override annotation`;
> > > > These one have `In progress` state:
> > > >  - `Fix unused imports`;
> > > >  - `Remove unnecessary @SuppressWarnings annotation`;
> > > >
> > > > The list of issues related to the current Code Inspections changes
> can
> > be
> > > > found [1]
> > > > with using label `inspections`. So, to move forward and not lose
> > current
> > > > changes I
> > > > propose to:
> > > >  - Create the new configuration idea\ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml
> (I
> > > > will file a new issue for it);
> > > >  - Tune `Inspections: Core` Suite to use this configuration profile
> (It
> > > > will run with each PR);
> > > >  - In the case with fixing a new inspection rule enable it this
> > > inspection
> > > > configuration.
> > > >
> > > > This will allow us to move forward in small steps and at some point
> of
> > > time
> > > > in future we will switch
> > > > this ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml with the
> > > > default ignite_inspections.xml.
> > > >
> > > > Thoughts?
> > > > Pert Ivanov, will you help to tune `Inspections: Core` suite?
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9923?jql=project%20%3D%20Ignite%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20inspections
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, 25 Aug 2018 at 00:54 Dmitriy Pavlov 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > IntelliJ Idea shows missing @Override annotation on my
> installation.
> > > Not
> > > > > sure it comes from our inspection or not.
> > > > >
> > > > > Anyway, count on me.
> > > > >
> > > > > пт, 24 авг. 2018 г. в 9:25, Maxim Muzafarov :
> > > > >
> > > > > > Folks,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think we can make a small step further with Ignite Inspections.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've created these tickets [1], [2] for myself according to
> > > previously
> > > > > > added
> > > > > > `idea/ignite_inspections.xml` and I plan to complete them.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Who will help me with review and merge?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9311 - Add
> > missing
> > > > > > @Override annotation
> > > > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9312 - Remove
> > > > >
> > > > > unnecessary
> > > > > > @SuppressWarnings annotation
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, 16 Aug 2018 at 19:53 Dmitriy Pavlov <
> dpavlov@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Pavel,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thank you for 

Re: Code inspection

[Sergey Antonov]

Hello, Maxim!

Good job!

пт, 26 окт. 2018 г. в 0:47, Maxim Muzafarov :

> Igniters,
>
> The new `Inspections: Core` suite [2] configured on TeamCity (pass
> successfully with - Inspections total: 0, errors: 0 ).
> The next rules are enabled for this suite:
>  - `Missorted modifiers`;
>  - `'size() == 0' replaceable with 'isEmpty()'`;
>  - `Add missing @Override annotation`;
>  - `Fix unused imports`;
>
> Let's incule it to the `Run::All` group on TC, so we will check these rules
> automatically for each PR.
> Any objections?
>
>
> Talking about the details,
>
> - the issue [1] with adding an inspections configuration for TC have PA
> status;
> - the new configuration ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml added to PR;
> - four rules which are already fixed in the master branch enabled in
> config;
> - the `Inspections:Core` suite configured to use the inspections
> configuration from the local branch;
> - the example `how to use inspections from the command line` added.
>
>
> Petr, Nikolay,
>
> Thank you for your support!
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9983
> [2]
>
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore_IgniteTests24Java8=pull%2F5059%2Fhead=buildTypeStatusDiv
> [3]
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9983?focusedCommentId=16662323=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-16662323
>
> On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 at 19:16 Nikolay Izhikov  wrote:
>
> > Hello, Maxim.
> >
> > +1 from me.
> >
> > I vote to enable static inspections for the Ignite codebase.
> > Thank you for that contributions!
> >
> > В Вт, 23/10/2018 в 19:09 +0300, Maxim Muzafarov пишет:
> > > Igniters,
> > >
> > > I've fixed some issues according to the inspections.xml configuration:
> > >  - `Missorted modifiers`;
> > >  - `'size() == 0' replaceable with 'isEmpty()'`;
> > >  - `Add missing @Override annotation`;
> > > These one have `In progress` state:
> > >  - `Fix unused imports`;
> > >  - `Remove unnecessary @SuppressWarnings annotation`;
> > >
> > > The list of issues related to the current Code Inspections changes can
> be
> > > found [1]
> > > with using label `inspections`. So, to move forward and not lose
> current
> > > changes I
> > > propose to:
> > >  - Create the new configuration idea\ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml (I
> > > will file a new issue for it);
> > >  - Tune `Inspections: Core` Suite to use this configuration profile (It
> > > will run with each PR);
> > >  - In the case with fixing a new inspection rule enable it this
> > inspection
> > > configuration.
> > >
> > > This will allow us to move forward in small steps and at some point of
> > time
> > > in future we will switch
> > > this ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml with the
> > > default ignite_inspections.xml.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > > Pert Ivanov, will you help to tune `Inspections: Core` suite?
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9923?jql=project%20%3D%20Ignite%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20inspections
> > >
> > > On Sat, 25 Aug 2018 at 00:54 Dmitriy Pavlov 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > IntelliJ Idea shows missing @Override annotation on my installation.
> > Not
> > > > sure it comes from our inspection or not.
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, count on me.
> > > >
> > > > пт, 24 авг. 2018 г. в 9:25, Maxim Muzafarov :
> > > >
> > > > > Folks,
> > > > >
> > > > > I think we can make a small step further with Ignite Inspections.
> > > > >
> > > > > I've created these tickets [1], [2] for myself according to
> > previously
> > > > > added
> > > > > `idea/ignite_inspections.xml` and I plan to complete them.
> > > > >
> > > > > Who will help me with review and merge?
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9311 - Add
> missing
> > > > > @Override annotation
> > > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9312 - Remove
> > > >
> > > > unnecessary
> > > > > @SuppressWarnings annotation
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 16 Aug 2018 at 19:53 Dmitriy Pavlov  >
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Pavel,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you for noticing and bringing it here. I've fixed TC
> failure.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sincerely,
> > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > >
> > > > > > чт, 16 авг. 2018 г. в 0:10, Pavel Pereslegin :
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hello Igniters.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It seems that "idea/ignite_inspections.xml" should be excluded
> > from
> > > > > > > "check-licenses" maven profile, because "_Licenses Headers_"
> > > > > > > configuration always fails now [1] on TeamCity.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_LicensesHeaders=buildTypeHistoryList_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E
> > > > > > > ср, 15 авг. 2018 г. в 20:49, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > dpavlov@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I've updated wiki page
> > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> 

Re: Code inspection

[Petr Ivanov]

Added -> Run :: IntelliJ IDEA Inspections [1] to Run All
Disclaimer: currently, on branches with no inspections file there is default 
inspections file with all inspections turned off


[1] 
https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_RunIntelliJIdeaInspections

> On 26 Oct 2018, at 00:47, Maxim Muzafarov  wrote:
> 
> Igniters,
> 
> The new `Inspections: Core` suite [2] configured on TeamCity (pass
> successfully with - Inspections total: 0, errors: 0 ).
> The next rules are enabled for this suite:
> - `Missorted modifiers`;
> - `'size() == 0' replaceable with 'isEmpty()'`;
> - `Add missing @Override annotation`;
> - `Fix unused imports`;
> 
> Let's incule it to the `Run::All` group on TC, so we will check these rules
> automatically for each PR.
> Any objections?
> 
> 
> Talking about the details,
> 
> - the issue [1] with adding an inspections configuration for TC have PA
> status;
> - the new configuration ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml added to PR;
> - four rules which are already fixed in the master branch enabled in config;
> - the `Inspections:Core` suite configured to use the inspections
> configuration from the local branch;
> - the example `how to use inspections from the command line` added.
> 
> 
> Petr, Nikolay,
> 
> Thank you for your support!
> 
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9983
> [2]
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore_IgniteTests24Java8=pull%2F5059%2Fhead=buildTypeStatusDiv
> [3]
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9983?focusedCommentId=16662323=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-16662323
> 
> On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 at 19:16 Nikolay Izhikov  wrote:
> 
>> Hello, Maxim.
>> 
>> +1 from me.
>> 
>> I vote to enable static inspections for the Ignite codebase.
>> Thank you for that contributions!
>> 
>> В Вт, 23/10/2018 в 19:09 +0300, Maxim Muzafarov пишет:
>>> Igniters,
>>> 
>>> I've fixed some issues according to the inspections.xml configuration:
>>> - `Missorted modifiers`;
>>> - `'size() == 0' replaceable with 'isEmpty()'`;
>>> - `Add missing @Override annotation`;
>>> These one have `In progress` state:
>>> - `Fix unused imports`;
>>> - `Remove unnecessary @SuppressWarnings annotation`;
>>> 
>>> The list of issues related to the current Code Inspections changes can be
>>> found [1]
>>> with using label `inspections`. So, to move forward and not lose current
>>> changes I
>>> propose to:
>>> - Create the new configuration idea\ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml (I
>>> will file a new issue for it);
>>> - Tune `Inspections: Core` Suite to use this configuration profile (It
>>> will run with each PR);
>>> - In the case with fixing a new inspection rule enable it this
>> inspection
>>> configuration.
>>> 
>>> This will allow us to move forward in small steps and at some point of
>> time
>>> in future we will switch
>>> this ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml with the
>>> default ignite_inspections.xml.
>>> 
>>> Thoughts?
>>> Pert Ivanov, will you help to tune `Inspections: Core` suite?
>>> 
>>> [1]
>>> 
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9923?jql=project%20%3D%20Ignite%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20inspections
>>> 
>>> On Sat, 25 Aug 2018 at 00:54 Dmitriy Pavlov 
>> wrote:
>>> 
 IntelliJ Idea shows missing @Override annotation on my installation.
>> Not
 sure it comes from our inspection or not.
 
 Anyway, count on me.
 
 пт, 24 авг. 2018 г. в 9:25, Maxim Muzafarov :
 
> Folks,
> 
> I think we can make a small step further with Ignite Inspections.
> 
> I've created these tickets [1], [2] for myself according to
>> previously
> added
> `idea/ignite_inspections.xml` and I plan to complete them.
> 
> Who will help me with review and merge?
> 
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9311 - Add missing
> @Override annotation
> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9312 - Remove
 
 unnecessary
> @SuppressWarnings annotation
> 
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2018 at 19:53 Dmitriy Pavlov 
 
 wrote:
> 
>> Hi Pavel,
>> 
>> Thank you for noticing and bringing it here. I've fixed TC failure.
>> 
>> Sincerely,
>> Dmitriy Pavlov
>> 
>> чт, 16 авг. 2018 г. в 0:10, Pavel Pereslegin :
>> 
>>> Hello Igniters.
>>> 
>>> It seems that "idea/ignite_inspections.xml" should be excluded
>> from
>>> "check-licenses" maven profile, because "_Licenses Headers_"
>>> configuration always fails now [1] on TeamCity.
>>> 
>>> [1]
>>> 
 
 
>> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_LicensesHeaders=buildTypeHistoryList_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E
>>> ср, 15 авг. 2018 г. в 20:49, Dmitriy Pavlov <
>> dpavlov@gmail.com>:
 
 I've updated wiki page
 
 
 
>> 

Re: Code inspection

[Vladimir Ozerov]

+1

On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 9:45 AM Nikolay Izhikov  wrote:

> Hello, Maxim.
>
> Great job! Thank you!
> Igniters, let's add this suite to the Run All!
>
> It can help us improve code quality and check code style without human
> eyes.
>
>
> В Пт, 26/10/2018 в 00:47 +0300, Maxim Muzafarov пишет:
> > Igniters,
> >
> > The new `Inspections: Core` suite [2] configured on TeamCity (pass
> > successfully with - Inspections total: 0, errors: 0 ).
> > The next rules are enabled for this suite:
> >  - `Missorted modifiers`;
> >  - `'size() == 0' replaceable with 'isEmpty()'`;
> >  - `Add missing @Override annotation`;
> >  - `Fix unused imports`;
> >
> > Let's incule it to the `Run::All` group on TC, so we will check these
> rules
> > automatically for each PR.
> > Any objections?
> >
> >
> > Talking about the details,
> >
> > - the issue [1] with adding an inspections configuration for TC have PA
> > status;
> > - the new configuration ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml added to PR;
> > - four rules which are already fixed in the master branch enabled in
> config;
> > - the `Inspections:Core` suite configured to use the inspections
> > configuration from the local branch;
> > - the example `how to use inspections from the command line` added.
> >
> >
> > Petr, Nikolay,
> >
> > Thank you for your support!
> >
> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9983
> > [2]
> >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore_IgniteTests24Java8=pull%2F5059%2Fhead=buildTypeStatusDiv
> > [3]
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9983?focusedCommentId=16662323=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-16662323
> >
> > On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 at 19:16 Nikolay Izhikov 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello, Maxim.
> > >
> > > +1 from me.
> > >
> > > I vote to enable static inspections for the Ignite codebase.
> > > Thank you for that contributions!
> > >
> > > В Вт, 23/10/2018 в 19:09 +0300, Maxim Muzafarov пишет:
> > > > Igniters,
> > > >
> > > > I've fixed some issues according to the inspections.xml
> configuration:
> > > >  - `Missorted modifiers`;
> > > >  - `'size() == 0' replaceable with 'isEmpty()'`;
> > > >  - `Add missing @Override annotation`;
> > > > These one have `In progress` state:
> > > >  - `Fix unused imports`;
> > > >  - `Remove unnecessary @SuppressWarnings annotation`;
> > > >
> > > > The list of issues related to the current Code Inspections changes
> can be
> > > > found [1]
> > > > with using label `inspections`. So, to move forward and not lose
> current
> > > > changes I
> > > > propose to:
> > > >  - Create the new configuration idea\ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml
> (I
> > > > will file a new issue for it);
> > > >  - Tune `Inspections: Core` Suite to use this configuration profile
> (It
> > > > will run with each PR);
> > > >  - In the case with fixing a new inspection rule enable it this
> > >
> > > inspection
> > > > configuration.
> > > >
> > > > This will allow us to move forward in small steps and at some point
> of
> > >
> > > time
> > > > in future we will switch
> > > > this ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml with the
> > > > default ignite_inspections.xml.
> > > >
> > > > Thoughts?
> > > > Pert Ivanov, will you help to tune `Inspections: Core` suite?
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9923?jql=project%20%3D%20Ignite%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20inspections
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, 25 Aug 2018 at 00:54 Dmitriy Pavlov 
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > IntelliJ Idea shows missing @Override annotation on my
> installation.
> > >
> > > Not
> > > > > sure it comes from our inspection or not.
> > > > >
> > > > > Anyway, count on me.
> > > > >
> > > > > пт, 24 авг. 2018 г. в 9:25, Maxim Muzafarov :
> > > > >
> > > > > > Folks,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think we can make a small step further with Ignite Inspections.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've created these tickets [1], [2] for myself according to
> > >
> > > previously
> > > > > > added
> > > > > > `idea/ignite_inspections.xml` and I plan to complete them.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Who will help me with review and merge?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9311 - Add
> missing
> > > > > > @Override annotation
> > > > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9312 - Remove
> > > > >
> > > > > unnecessary
> > > > > > @SuppressWarnings annotation
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, 16 Aug 2018 at 19:53 Dmitriy Pavlov <
> dpavlov@gmail.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Pavel,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thank you for noticing and bringing it here. I've fixed TC
> failure.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sincerely,
> > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > чт, 16 авг. 2018 г. в 0:10, Pavel Pereslegin  >:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hello Igniters.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It seems that "idea/ignite_inspections.xml" should be
> excluded
> 

Re: Code inspection

[Nikolay Izhikov]

Hello, Maxim.

Great job! Thank you!
Igniters, let's add this suite to the Run All!

It can help us improve code quality and check code style without human eyes.


В Пт, 26/10/2018 в 00:47 +0300, Maxim Muzafarov пишет:
> Igniters,
> 
> The new `Inspections: Core` suite [2] configured on TeamCity (pass
> successfully with - Inspections total: 0, errors: 0 ).
> The next rules are enabled for this suite:
>  - `Missorted modifiers`;
>  - `'size() == 0' replaceable with 'isEmpty()'`;
>  - `Add missing @Override annotation`;
>  - `Fix unused imports`;
> 
> Let's incule it to the `Run::All` group on TC, so we will check these rules
> automatically for each PR.
> Any objections?
> 
> 
> Talking about the details,
> 
> - the issue [1] with adding an inspections configuration for TC have PA
> status;
> - the new configuration ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml added to PR;
> - four rules which are already fixed in the master branch enabled in config;
> - the `Inspections:Core` suite configured to use the inspections
> configuration from the local branch;
> - the example `how to use inspections from the command line` added.
> 
> 
> Petr, Nikolay,
> 
> Thank you for your support!
> 
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9983
> [2]
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore_IgniteTests24Java8=pull%2F5059%2Fhead=buildTypeStatusDiv
> [3]
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9983?focusedCommentId=16662323=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-16662323
> 
> On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 at 19:16 Nikolay Izhikov  wrote:
> 
> > Hello, Maxim.
> > 
> > +1 from me.
> > 
> > I vote to enable static inspections for the Ignite codebase.
> > Thank you for that contributions!
> > 
> > В Вт, 23/10/2018 в 19:09 +0300, Maxim Muzafarov пишет:
> > > Igniters,
> > > 
> > > I've fixed some issues according to the inspections.xml configuration:
> > >  - `Missorted modifiers`;
> > >  - `'size() == 0' replaceable with 'isEmpty()'`;
> > >  - `Add missing @Override annotation`;
> > > These one have `In progress` state:
> > >  - `Fix unused imports`;
> > >  - `Remove unnecessary @SuppressWarnings annotation`;
> > > 
> > > The list of issues related to the current Code Inspections changes can be
> > > found [1]
> > > with using label `inspections`. So, to move forward and not lose current
> > > changes I
> > > propose to:
> > >  - Create the new configuration idea\ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml (I
> > > will file a new issue for it);
> > >  - Tune `Inspections: Core` Suite to use this configuration profile (It
> > > will run with each PR);
> > >  - In the case with fixing a new inspection rule enable it this
> > 
> > inspection
> > > configuration.
> > > 
> > > This will allow us to move forward in small steps and at some point of
> > 
> > time
> > > in future we will switch
> > > this ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml with the
> > > default ignite_inspections.xml.
> > > 
> > > Thoughts?
> > > Pert Ivanov, will you help to tune `Inspections: Core` suite?
> > > 
> > > [1]
> > > 
> > 
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9923?jql=project%20%3D%20Ignite%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20inspections
> > > 
> > > On Sat, 25 Aug 2018 at 00:54 Dmitriy Pavlov 
> > 
> > wrote:
> > > 
> > > > IntelliJ Idea shows missing @Override annotation on my installation.
> > 
> > Not
> > > > sure it comes from our inspection or not.
> > > > 
> > > > Anyway, count on me.
> > > > 
> > > > пт, 24 авг. 2018 г. в 9:25, Maxim Muzafarov :
> > > > 
> > > > > Folks,
> > > > > 
> > > > > I think we can make a small step further with Ignite Inspections.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I've created these tickets [1], [2] for myself according to
> > 
> > previously
> > > > > added
> > > > > `idea/ignite_inspections.xml` and I plan to complete them.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Who will help me with review and merge?
> > > > > 
> > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9311 - Add missing
> > > > > @Override annotation
> > > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9312 - Remove
> > > > 
> > > > unnecessary
> > > > > @SuppressWarnings annotation
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Thu, 16 Aug 2018 at 19:53 Dmitriy Pavlov 
> > > > 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Hi Pavel,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Thank you for noticing and bringing it here. I've fixed TC failure.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Sincerely,
> > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > чт, 16 авг. 2018 г. в 0:10, Pavel Pereslegin :
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Hello Igniters.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > It seems that "idea/ignite_inspections.xml" should be excluded
> > 
> > from
> > > > > > > "check-licenses" maven profile, because "_Licenses Headers_"
> > > > > > > configuration always fails now [1] on TeamCity.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > 
> > 

Re: Code inspection

[Maxim Muzafarov]

Igniters,

The new `Inspections: Core` suite [2] configured on TeamCity (pass
successfully with - Inspections total: 0, errors: 0 ).
The next rules are enabled for this suite:
 - `Missorted modifiers`;
 - `'size() == 0' replaceable with 'isEmpty()'`;
 - `Add missing @Override annotation`;
 - `Fix unused imports`;

Let's incule it to the `Run::All` group on TC, so we will check these rules
automatically for each PR.
Any objections?


Talking about the details,

- the issue [1] with adding an inspections configuration for TC have PA
status;
- the new configuration ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml added to PR;
- four rules which are already fixed in the master branch enabled in config;
- the `Inspections:Core` suite configured to use the inspections
configuration from the local branch;
- the example `how to use inspections from the command line` added.


Petr, Nikolay,

Thank you for your support!

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9983
[2]
https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore_IgniteTests24Java8=pull%2F5059%2Fhead=buildTypeStatusDiv
[3]
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9983?focusedCommentId=16662323=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-16662323

On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 at 19:16 Nikolay Izhikov  wrote:

> Hello, Maxim.
>
> +1 from me.
>
> I vote to enable static inspections for the Ignite codebase.
> Thank you for that contributions!
>
> В Вт, 23/10/2018 в 19:09 +0300, Maxim Muzafarov пишет:
> > Igniters,
> >
> > I've fixed some issues according to the inspections.xml configuration:
> >  - `Missorted modifiers`;
> >  - `'size() == 0' replaceable with 'isEmpty()'`;
> >  - `Add missing @Override annotation`;
> > These one have `In progress` state:
> >  - `Fix unused imports`;
> >  - `Remove unnecessary @SuppressWarnings annotation`;
> >
> > The list of issues related to the current Code Inspections changes can be
> > found [1]
> > with using label `inspections`. So, to move forward and not lose current
> > changes I
> > propose to:
> >  - Create the new configuration idea\ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml (I
> > will file a new issue for it);
> >  - Tune `Inspections: Core` Suite to use this configuration profile (It
> > will run with each PR);
> >  - In the case with fixing a new inspection rule enable it this
> inspection
> > configuration.
> >
> > This will allow us to move forward in small steps and at some point of
> time
> > in future we will switch
> > this ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml with the
> > default ignite_inspections.xml.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> > Pert Ivanov, will you help to tune `Inspections: Core` suite?
> >
> > [1]
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9923?jql=project%20%3D%20Ignite%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20inspections
> >
> > On Sat, 25 Aug 2018 at 00:54 Dmitriy Pavlov 
> wrote:
> >
> > > IntelliJ Idea shows missing @Override annotation on my installation.
> Not
> > > sure it comes from our inspection or not.
> > >
> > > Anyway, count on me.
> > >
> > > пт, 24 авг. 2018 г. в 9:25, Maxim Muzafarov :
> > >
> > > > Folks,
> > > >
> > > > I think we can make a small step further with Ignite Inspections.
> > > >
> > > > I've created these tickets [1], [2] for myself according to
> previously
> > > > added
> > > > `idea/ignite_inspections.xml` and I plan to complete them.
> > > >
> > > > Who will help me with review and merge?
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9311 - Add missing
> > > > @Override annotation
> > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9312 - Remove
> > >
> > > unnecessary
> > > > @SuppressWarnings annotation
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 16 Aug 2018 at 19:53 Dmitriy Pavlov 
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Pavel,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you for noticing and bringing it here. I've fixed TC failure.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sincerely,
> > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > >
> > > > > чт, 16 авг. 2018 г. в 0:10, Pavel Pereslegin :
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hello Igniters.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It seems that "idea/ignite_inspections.xml" should be excluded
> from
> > > > > > "check-licenses" maven profile, because "_Licenses Headers_"
> > > > > > configuration always fails now [1] on TeamCity.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1]
> > > > > >
> > >
> > >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_LicensesHeaders=buildTypeHistoryList_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E
> > > > > > ср, 15 авг. 2018 г. в 20:49, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> dpavlov@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've updated wiki page
> > > > > > >
> > >
> > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Coding+Guidelines#CodingGuidelines-C.CodeInspection
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > reference to settings.xml placement in the project.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It is only advice, so I hope you don't mind having this
> reference.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ср, 15 авг. 2018 г. в 16:45, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> dpavlov@gmail.com
> > > >

Re: Code inspection

[Nikolay Izhikov]

Hello, Maxim.

+1 from me.

I vote to enable static inspections for the Ignite codebase.
Thank you for that contributions!

В Вт, 23/10/2018 в 19:09 +0300, Maxim Muzafarov пишет:
> Igniters,
> 
> I've fixed some issues according to the inspections.xml configuration:
>  - `Missorted modifiers`;
>  - `'size() == 0' replaceable with 'isEmpty()'`;
>  - `Add missing @Override annotation`;
> These one have `In progress` state:
>  - `Fix unused imports`;
>  - `Remove unnecessary @SuppressWarnings annotation`;
> 
> The list of issues related to the current Code Inspections changes can be
> found [1]
> with using label `inspections`. So, to move forward and not lose current
> changes I
> propose to:
>  - Create the new configuration idea\ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml (I
> will file a new issue for it);
>  - Tune `Inspections: Core` Suite to use this configuration profile (It
> will run with each PR);
>  - In the case with fixing a new inspection rule enable it this inspection
> configuration.
> 
> This will allow us to move forward in small steps and at some point of time
> in future we will switch
> this ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml with the
> default ignite_inspections.xml.
> 
> Thoughts?
> Pert Ivanov, will you help to tune `Inspections: Core` suite?
> 
> [1]
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9923?jql=project%20%3D%20Ignite%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20inspections
> 
> On Sat, 25 Aug 2018 at 00:54 Dmitriy Pavlov  wrote:
> 
> > IntelliJ Idea shows missing @Override annotation on my installation. Not
> > sure it comes from our inspection or not.
> > 
> > Anyway, count on me.
> > 
> > пт, 24 авг. 2018 г. в 9:25, Maxim Muzafarov :
> > 
> > > Folks,
> > > 
> > > I think we can make a small step further with Ignite Inspections.
> > > 
> > > I've created these tickets [1], [2] for myself according to previously
> > > added
> > > `idea/ignite_inspections.xml` and I plan to complete them.
> > > 
> > > Who will help me with review and merge?
> > > 
> > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9311 - Add missing
> > > @Override annotation
> > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9312 - Remove
> > 
> > unnecessary
> > > @SuppressWarnings annotation
> > > 
> > > On Thu, 16 Aug 2018 at 19:53 Dmitriy Pavlov 
> > 
> > wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Hi Pavel,
> > > > 
> > > > Thank you for noticing and bringing it here. I've fixed TC failure.
> > > > 
> > > > Sincerely,
> > > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > 
> > > > чт, 16 авг. 2018 г. в 0:10, Pavel Pereslegin :
> > > > 
> > > > > Hello Igniters.
> > > > > 
> > > > > It seems that "idea/ignite_inspections.xml" should be excluded from
> > > > > "check-licenses" maven profile, because "_Licenses Headers_"
> > > > > configuration always fails now [1] on TeamCity.
> > > > > 
> > > > > [1]
> > > > > 
> > 
> > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_LicensesHeaders=buildTypeHistoryList_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E
> > > > > ср, 15 авг. 2018 г. в 20:49, Dmitriy Pavlov :
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I've updated wiki page
> > > > > > 
> > 
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Coding+Guidelines#CodingGuidelines-C.CodeInspection
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > reference to settings.xml placement in the project.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > It is only advice, so I hope you don't mind having this reference.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ср, 15 авг. 2018 г. в 16:45, Dmitriy Pavlov  > > 
> > > :
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Hi Maxim,
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Thank you for stepping in. I've committed the first version here
> > > > > > > 'idea/ignite_inspections.xml'. We can move it to project default
> > > > 
> > > > later
> > > > > when
> > > > > > > all inspection problems are fixed.
> > > > > > > Commit:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > 
> > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=ignite.git;a=commit;h=3e0f04edf7cc0aa1631fbd1b9af1e9b87b697eb1
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > you can enable this profile using the following steps:
> > 
> > Inspections
> > > > > > > (icon)->Configure inspections->(settings button)->Import
> > > > > 
> > > > > Profile->select
> > > > > > > file and import.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Sincerely,
> > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > вт, 14 авг. 2018 г. в 16:31, Maxim Muzafarov  > > 
> > > :
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Dmitry and other Igniters,
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Previously you has suggested to commit `Code Inspections` into
> > > > 
> > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > codebase.
> > > > > > > > It makes sense for me. I think it's the easiest way to share
> > 
> > this
> > > > > profile
> > > > > > > > among community
> > > > > > > > members and this inspection can be set as for the project level.
> > > > > > > > So, I suggest:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 1) According to Jetbrains documentation [1] the inspection
> > 
> > profile
> > > > > can be
> > > > > > > > placed to
> > > > > > > > 

Re: Code inspection

[Maxim Muzafarov]

Igniters,

I've fixed some issues according to the inspections.xml configuration:
 - `Missorted modifiers`;
 - `'size() == 0' replaceable with 'isEmpty()'`;
 - `Add missing @Override annotation`;
These one have `In progress` state:
 - `Fix unused imports`;
 - `Remove unnecessary @SuppressWarnings annotation`;

The list of issues related to the current Code Inspections changes can be
found [1]
with using label `inspections`. So, to move forward and not lose current
changes I
propose to:
 - Create the new configuration idea\ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml (I
will file a new issue for it);
 - Tune `Inspections: Core` Suite to use this configuration profile (It
will run with each PR);
 - In the case with fixing a new inspection rule enable it this inspection
configuration.

This will allow us to move forward in small steps and at some point of time
in future we will switch
this ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml with the
default ignite_inspections.xml.

Thoughts?
Pert Ivanov, will you help to tune `Inspections: Core` suite?

[1]
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9923?jql=project%20%3D%20Ignite%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20inspections

On Sat, 25 Aug 2018 at 00:54 Dmitriy Pavlov  wrote:

> IntelliJ Idea shows missing @Override annotation on my installation. Not
> sure it comes from our inspection or not.
>
> Anyway, count on me.
>
> пт, 24 авг. 2018 г. в 9:25, Maxim Muzafarov :
>
> > Folks,
> >
> > I think we can make a small step further with Ignite Inspections.
> >
> > I've created these tickets [1], [2] for myself according to previously
> > added
> > `idea/ignite_inspections.xml` and I plan to complete them.
> >
> > Who will help me with review and merge?
> >
> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9311 - Add missing
> > @Override annotation
> > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9312 - Remove
> unnecessary
> > @SuppressWarnings annotation
> >
> > On Thu, 16 Aug 2018 at 19:53 Dmitriy Pavlov 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Pavel,
> > >
> > > Thank you for noticing and bringing it here. I've fixed TC failure.
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > >
> > > чт, 16 авг. 2018 г. в 0:10, Pavel Pereslegin :
> > >
> > > > Hello Igniters.
> > > >
> > > > It seems that "idea/ignite_inspections.xml" should be excluded from
> > > > "check-licenses" maven profile, because "_Licenses Headers_"
> > > > configuration always fails now [1] on TeamCity.
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_LicensesHeaders=buildTypeHistoryList_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E
> > > > ср, 15 авг. 2018 г. в 20:49, Dmitriy Pavlov :
> > > > >
> > > > > I've updated wiki page
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Coding+Guidelines#CodingGuidelines-C.CodeInspection
> > > > > with
> > > > > reference to settings.xml placement in the project.
> > > > >
> > > > > It is only advice, so I hope you don't mind having this reference.
> > > > >
> > > > > ср, 15 авг. 2018 г. в 16:45, Dmitriy Pavlov  >:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Maxim,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you for stepping in. I've committed the first version here
> > > > > > 'idea/ignite_inspections.xml'. We can move it to project default
> > > later
> > > > when
> > > > > > all inspection problems are fixed.
> > > > > > Commit:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=ignite.git;a=commit;h=3e0f04edf7cc0aa1631fbd1b9af1e9b87b697eb1
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > you can enable this profile using the following steps:
> Inspections
> > > > > > (icon)->Configure inspections->(settings button)->Import
> > > > Profile->select
> > > > > > file and import.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sincerely,
> > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > >
> > > > > > вт, 14 авг. 2018 г. в 16:31, Maxim Muzafarov  >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Dmitry and other Igniters,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Previously you has suggested to commit `Code Inspections` into
> > > Ignite
> > > > > >> codebase.
> > > > > >> It makes sense for me. I think it's the easiest way to share
> this
> > > > profile
> > > > > >> among community
> > > > > >> members and this inspection can be set as for the project level.
> > > > > >> So, I suggest:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> 1) According to Jetbrains documentation [1] the inspection
> profile
> > > > can be
> > > > > >> placed to
> > > > > >> `/.idea/inspectionProfiles` with name
> > `Project_Default.xml`
> > > > > >> (hope most of us using IDEA for development)
> > > > > >> This allows enable this profile automatically on per project
> level
> > > and
> > > > > >> will
> > > > > >> simplify
> > > > > >> development process according to rules accepted by our
> community.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> 2) I can file tickets and do some of them to fix inspection
> > failures
> > > > which
> > > > > >> Alexey mentioned
> > > > > >> earlier. Hope other members of community will help me with it.
> > 

Re: Code inspection

[Dmitriy Pavlov]

IntelliJ Idea shows missing @Override annotation on my installation. Not
sure it comes from our inspection or not.

Anyway, count on me.

пт, 24 авг. 2018 г. в 9:25, Maxim Muzafarov :

> Folks,
>
> I think we can make a small step further with Ignite Inspections.
>
> I've created these tickets [1], [2] for myself according to previously
> added
> `idea/ignite_inspections.xml` and I plan to complete them.
>
> Who will help me with review and merge?
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9311 - Add missing
> @Override annotation
> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9312 - Remove unnecessary
> @SuppressWarnings annotation
>
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2018 at 19:53 Dmitriy Pavlov  wrote:
>
> > Hi Pavel,
> >
> > Thank you for noticing and bringing it here. I've fixed TC failure.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Dmitriy Pavlov
> >
> > чт, 16 авг. 2018 г. в 0:10, Pavel Pereslegin :
> >
> > > Hello Igniters.
> > >
> > > It seems that "idea/ignite_inspections.xml" should be excluded from
> > > "check-licenses" maven profile, because "_Licenses Headers_"
> > > configuration always fails now [1] on TeamCity.
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_LicensesHeaders=buildTypeHistoryList_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E
> > > ср, 15 авг. 2018 г. в 20:49, Dmitriy Pavlov :
> > > >
> > > > I've updated wiki page
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Coding+Guidelines#CodingGuidelines-C.CodeInspection
> > > > with
> > > > reference to settings.xml placement in the project.
> > > >
> > > > It is only advice, so I hope you don't mind having this reference.
> > > >
> > > > ср, 15 авг. 2018 г. в 16:45, Dmitriy Pavlov :
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Maxim,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you for stepping in. I've committed the first version here
> > > > > 'idea/ignite_inspections.xml'. We can move it to project default
> > later
> > > when
> > > > > all inspection problems are fixed.
> > > > > Commit:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> >
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=ignite.git;a=commit;h=3e0f04edf7cc0aa1631fbd1b9af1e9b87b697eb1
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Igniters,
> > > > >
> > > > > you can enable this profile using the following steps: Inspections
> > > > > (icon)->Configure inspections->(settings button)->Import
> > > Profile->select
> > > > > file and import.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sincerely,
> > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > >
> > > > > вт, 14 авг. 2018 г. в 16:31, Maxim Muzafarov :
> > > > >
> > > > >> Dmitry and other Igniters,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Previously you has suggested to commit `Code Inspections` into
> > Ignite
> > > > >> codebase.
> > > > >> It makes sense for me. I think it's the easiest way to share this
> > > profile
> > > > >> among community
> > > > >> members and this inspection can be set as for the project level.
> > > > >> So, I suggest:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 1) According to Jetbrains documentation [1] the inspection profile
> > > can be
> > > > >> placed to
> > > > >> `/.idea/inspectionProfiles` with name
> `Project_Default.xml`
> > > > >> (hope most of us using IDEA for development)
> > > > >> This allows enable this profile automatically on per project level
> > and
> > > > >> will
> > > > >> simplify
> > > > >> development process according to rules accepted by our community.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 2) I can file tickets and do some of them to fix inspection
> failures
> > > which
> > > > >> Alexey mentioned
> > > > >> earlier. Hope other members of community will help me with it.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 3) I think `Inspections (Core)` TeamCity can be triggered as
> nightly
> > > build
> > > > >> as it takes more
> > > > >> than 4 hours. Suppose, inspection build in each PR is not the best
> > > way in
> > > > >> our case. New run
> > > > >> here [2].
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 4) We can tune our MTCGA.Bot to notify members with new inspection
> > > > >> failures
> > > > >> added by them.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Also, I've taken Alexey's inspection file as an example, I’ve
> > checked
> > > what
> > > > >> we already discussed
> > > > >> previously (e.g. `Anonymous class can be converted to lambda`
> should
> > > be
> > > > >> disabled by default)
> > > > >> and added these additional rules to it:
> > > > >>  - General | Line is longer than allowed by code style
> > > > >>  - Java | Code maturity | Call to 'printStackTrace()'
> > > > >>  - Java | Code style issues | Unnecessary 'null' check before
> > > 'equals()'
> > > > >> call
> > > > >>
> > > > >> If we decide to proceed I will attach this file to JIRA.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> [1] https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/code-inspection.html
> > > > >> [2]
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore=buildTypeStatusDiv_IgniteTests24Java8=pull%2F3710%2Fhead
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 at 16:19 Dmitriy Pavlov <
> dpavlov@gmail.com>
> > > > >> 

Re: Code inspection

[Maxim Muzafarov]

Folks,

I think we can make a small step further with Ignite Inspections.

I've created these tickets [1], [2] for myself according to previously
added
`idea/ignite_inspections.xml` and I plan to complete them.

Who will help me with review and merge?

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9311 - Add missing
@Override annotation
[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9312 - Remove unnecessary
@SuppressWarnings annotation

On Thu, 16 Aug 2018 at 19:53 Dmitriy Pavlov  wrote:

> Hi Pavel,
>
> Thank you for noticing and bringing it here. I've fixed TC failure.
>
> Sincerely,
> Dmitriy Pavlov
>
> чт, 16 авг. 2018 г. в 0:10, Pavel Pereslegin :
>
> > Hello Igniters.
> >
> > It seems that "idea/ignite_inspections.xml" should be excluded from
> > "check-licenses" maven profile, because "_Licenses Headers_"
> > configuration always fails now [1] on TeamCity.
> >
> > [1]
> >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_LicensesHeaders=buildTypeHistoryList_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E
> > ср, 15 авг. 2018 г. в 20:49, Dmitriy Pavlov :
> > >
> > > I've updated wiki page
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Coding+Guidelines#CodingGuidelines-C.CodeInspection
> > > with
> > > reference to settings.xml placement in the project.
> > >
> > > It is only advice, so I hope you don't mind having this reference.
> > >
> > > ср, 15 авг. 2018 г. в 16:45, Dmitriy Pavlov :
> > >
> > > > Hi Maxim,
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for stepping in. I've committed the first version here
> > > > 'idea/ignite_inspections.xml'. We can move it to project default
> later
> > when
> > > > all inspection problems are fixed.
> > > > Commit:
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=ignite.git;a=commit;h=3e0f04edf7cc0aa1631fbd1b9af1e9b87b697eb1
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Igniters,
> > > >
> > > > you can enable this profile using the following steps: Inspections
> > > > (icon)->Configure inspections->(settings button)->Import
> > Profile->select
> > > > file and import.
> > > >
> > > > Sincerely,
> > > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > >
> > > > вт, 14 авг. 2018 г. в 16:31, Maxim Muzafarov :
> > > >
> > > >> Dmitry and other Igniters,
> > > >>
> > > >> Previously you has suggested to commit `Code Inspections` into
> Ignite
> > > >> codebase.
> > > >> It makes sense for me. I think it's the easiest way to share this
> > profile
> > > >> among community
> > > >> members and this inspection can be set as for the project level.
> > > >> So, I suggest:
> > > >>
> > > >> 1) According to Jetbrains documentation [1] the inspection profile
> > can be
> > > >> placed to
> > > >> `/.idea/inspectionProfiles` with name `Project_Default.xml`
> > > >> (hope most of us using IDEA for development)
> > > >> This allows enable this profile automatically on per project level
> and
> > > >> will
> > > >> simplify
> > > >> development process according to rules accepted by our community.
> > > >>
> > > >> 2) I can file tickets and do some of them to fix inspection failures
> > which
> > > >> Alexey mentioned
> > > >> earlier. Hope other members of community will help me with it.
> > > >>
> > > >> 3) I think `Inspections (Core)` TeamCity can be triggered as nightly
> > build
> > > >> as it takes more
> > > >> than 4 hours. Suppose, inspection build in each PR is not the best
> > way in
> > > >> our case. New run
> > > >> here [2].
> > > >>
> > > >> 4) We can tune our MTCGA.Bot to notify members with new inspection
> > > >> failures
> > > >> added by them.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Also, I've taken Alexey's inspection file as an example, I’ve
> checked
> > what
> > > >> we already discussed
> > > >> previously (e.g. `Anonymous class can be converted to lambda` should
> > be
> > > >> disabled by default)
> > > >> and added these additional rules to it:
> > > >>  - General | Line is longer than allowed by code style
> > > >>  - Java | Code maturity | Call to 'printStackTrace()'
> > > >>  - Java | Code style issues | Unnecessary 'null' check before
> > 'equals()'
> > > >> call
> > > >>
> > > >> If we decide to proceed I will attach this file to JIRA.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> [1] https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/code-inspection.html
> > > >> [2]
> > > >>
> > > >>
> >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore=buildTypeStatusDiv_IgniteTests24Java8=pull%2F3710%2Fhead
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 at 16:19 Dmitriy Pavlov 
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Hi Dmitriy Govoruknin,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > It seems there is a lack of volunteers to apply code inspections
> to
> > our
> > > >> CI
> > > >> > & patch submission process. Probably we could come back to your
> > > >> > initial idea about setting up inspection locally.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Could you commit or share your IDEA inspection settings? I could
> > apply
> > > >> it
> > > >> > at least on my machine and remove odd warning types one by one.
> > What do
> > > >> 

Re: Code inspection

[Dmitriy Pavlov]

Hi Pavel,

Thank you for noticing and bringing it here. I've fixed TC failure.

Sincerely,
Dmitriy Pavlov

чт, 16 авг. 2018 г. в 0:10, Pavel Pereslegin :

> Hello Igniters.
>
> It seems that "idea/ignite_inspections.xml" should be excluded from
> "check-licenses" maven profile, because "_Licenses Headers_"
> configuration always fails now [1] on TeamCity.
>
> [1]
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_LicensesHeaders=buildTypeHistoryList_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E
> ср, 15 авг. 2018 г. в 20:49, Dmitriy Pavlov :
> >
> > I've updated wiki page
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Coding+Guidelines#CodingGuidelines-C.CodeInspection
> > with
> > reference to settings.xml placement in the project.
> >
> > It is only advice, so I hope you don't mind having this reference.
> >
> > ср, 15 авг. 2018 г. в 16:45, Dmitriy Pavlov :
> >
> > > Hi Maxim,
> > >
> > > Thank you for stepping in. I've committed the first version here
> > > 'idea/ignite_inspections.xml'. We can move it to project default later
> when
> > > all inspection problems are fixed.
> > > Commit:
> > >
> > >
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=ignite.git;a=commit;h=3e0f04edf7cc0aa1631fbd1b9af1e9b87b697eb1
> > >
> > >
> > > Igniters,
> > >
> > > you can enable this profile using the following steps: Inspections
> > > (icon)->Configure inspections->(settings button)->Import
> Profile->select
> > > file and import.
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > >
> > > вт, 14 авг. 2018 г. в 16:31, Maxim Muzafarov :
> > >
> > >> Dmitry and other Igniters,
> > >>
> > >> Previously you has suggested to commit `Code Inspections` into Ignite
> > >> codebase.
> > >> It makes sense for me. I think it's the easiest way to share this
> profile
> > >> among community
> > >> members and this inspection can be set as for the project level.
> > >> So, I suggest:
> > >>
> > >> 1) According to Jetbrains documentation [1] the inspection profile
> can be
> > >> placed to
> > >> `/.idea/inspectionProfiles` with name `Project_Default.xml`
> > >> (hope most of us using IDEA for development)
> > >> This allows enable this profile automatically on per project level and
> > >> will
> > >> simplify
> > >> development process according to rules accepted by our community.
> > >>
> > >> 2) I can file tickets and do some of them to fix inspection failures
> which
> > >> Alexey mentioned
> > >> earlier. Hope other members of community will help me with it.
> > >>
> > >> 3) I think `Inspections (Core)` TeamCity can be triggered as nightly
> build
> > >> as it takes more
> > >> than 4 hours. Suppose, inspection build in each PR is not the best
> way in
> > >> our case. New run
> > >> here [2].
> > >>
> > >> 4) We can tune our MTCGA.Bot to notify members with new inspection
> > >> failures
> > >> added by them.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Also, I've taken Alexey's inspection file as an example, I’ve checked
> what
> > >> we already discussed
> > >> previously (e.g. `Anonymous class can be converted to lambda` should
> be
> > >> disabled by default)
> > >> and added these additional rules to it:
> > >>  - General | Line is longer than allowed by code style
> > >>  - Java | Code maturity | Call to 'printStackTrace()'
> > >>  - Java | Code style issues | Unnecessary 'null' check before
> 'equals()'
> > >> call
> > >>
> > >> If we decide to proceed I will attach this file to JIRA.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> [1] https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/code-inspection.html
> > >> [2]
> > >>
> > >>
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore=buildTypeStatusDiv_IgniteTests24Java8=pull%2F3710%2Fhead
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 at 16:19 Dmitriy Pavlov 
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Hi Dmitriy Govoruknin,
> > >> >
> > >> > It seems there is a lack of volunteers to apply code inspections to
> our
> > >> CI
> > >> > & patch submission process. Probably we could come back to your
> > >> > initial idea about setting up inspection locally.
> > >> >
> > >> > Could you commit or share your IDEA inspection settings? I could
> apply
> > >> it
> > >> > at least on my machine and remove odd warning types one by one.
> What do
> > >> you
> > >> > think?
> > >> >
> > >> > Sincerely,
> > >> > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > >> >
> > >> > сб, 4 авг. 2018 г. в 1:22, Dmitriy Pavlov :
> > >> >
> > >> > > Ideally, I should not asking for people to solve something for me.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > I just want this idea did not disappear from our radar.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > пт, 3 авг. 2018 г. в 23:47, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> dsetrak...@apache.org
> > >> >:
> > >> > >
> > >> > >> On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 7:49 AM, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > >> dpavlov@gmail.com>
> > >> > >> wrote:
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > I understand it is not so Apache-way from my side to ask
> > >> volunteers to
> > >> > >> do
> > >> > >> > some things (instead of contributing it by myself).
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> Dmitriy, I am 

Re: Code inspection

[Pavel Pereslegin]

Hello Igniters.

It seems that "idea/ignite_inspections.xml" should be excluded from
"check-licenses" maven profile, because "_Licenses Headers_"
configuration always fails now [1] on TeamCity.

[1] 
https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_LicensesHeaders=buildTypeHistoryList_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E
ср, 15 авг. 2018 г. в 20:49, Dmitriy Pavlov :
>
> I've updated wiki page
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Coding+Guidelines#CodingGuidelines-C.CodeInspection
> with
> reference to settings.xml placement in the project.
>
> It is only advice, so I hope you don't mind having this reference.
>
> ср, 15 авг. 2018 г. в 16:45, Dmitriy Pavlov :
>
> > Hi Maxim,
> >
> > Thank you for stepping in. I've committed the first version here
> > 'idea/ignite_inspections.xml'. We can move it to project default later when
> > all inspection problems are fixed.
> > Commit:
> >
> > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=ignite.git;a=commit;h=3e0f04edf7cc0aa1631fbd1b9af1e9b87b697eb1
> >
> >
> > Igniters,
> >
> > you can enable this profile using the following steps: Inspections
> > (icon)->Configure inspections->(settings button)->Import Profile->select
> > file and import.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Dmitriy Pavlov
> >
> > вт, 14 авг. 2018 г. в 16:31, Maxim Muzafarov :
> >
> >> Dmitry and other Igniters,
> >>
> >> Previously you has suggested to commit `Code Inspections` into Ignite
> >> codebase.
> >> It makes sense for me. I think it's the easiest way to share this profile
> >> among community
> >> members and this inspection can be set as for the project level.
> >> So, I suggest:
> >>
> >> 1) According to Jetbrains documentation [1] the inspection profile can be
> >> placed to
> >> `/.idea/inspectionProfiles` with name `Project_Default.xml`
> >> (hope most of us using IDEA for development)
> >> This allows enable this profile automatically on per project level and
> >> will
> >> simplify
> >> development process according to rules accepted by our community.
> >>
> >> 2) I can file tickets and do some of them to fix inspection failures which
> >> Alexey mentioned
> >> earlier. Hope other members of community will help me with it.
> >>
> >> 3) I think `Inspections (Core)` TeamCity can be triggered as nightly build
> >> as it takes more
> >> than 4 hours. Suppose, inspection build in each PR is not the best way in
> >> our case. New run
> >> here [2].
> >>
> >> 4) We can tune our MTCGA.Bot to notify members with new inspection
> >> failures
> >> added by them.
> >>
> >>
> >> Also, I've taken Alexey's inspection file as an example, I’ve checked what
> >> we already discussed
> >> previously (e.g. `Anonymous class can be converted to lambda` should be
> >> disabled by default)
> >> and added these additional rules to it:
> >>  - General | Line is longer than allowed by code style
> >>  - Java | Code maturity | Call to 'printStackTrace()'
> >>  - Java | Code style issues | Unnecessary 'null' check before 'equals()'
> >> call
> >>
> >> If we decide to proceed I will attach this file to JIRA.
> >>
> >>
> >> [1] https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/code-inspection.html
> >> [2]
> >>
> >> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore=buildTypeStatusDiv_IgniteTests24Java8=pull%2F3710%2Fhead
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 at 16:19 Dmitriy Pavlov 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hi Dmitriy Govoruknin,
> >> >
> >> > It seems there is a lack of volunteers to apply code inspections to our
> >> CI
> >> > & patch submission process. Probably we could come back to your
> >> > initial idea about setting up inspection locally.
> >> >
> >> > Could you commit or share your IDEA inspection settings? I could apply
> >> it
> >> > at least on my machine and remove odd warning types one by one. What do
> >> you
> >> > think?
> >> >
> >> > Sincerely,
> >> > Dmitriy Pavlov
> >> >
> >> > сб, 4 авг. 2018 г. в 1:22, Dmitriy Pavlov :
> >> >
> >> > > Ideally, I should not asking for people to solve something for me.
> >> > >
> >> > > I just want this idea did not disappear from our radar.
> >> > >
> >> > > пт, 3 авг. 2018 г. в 23:47, Dmitriy Setrakyan  >> >:
> >> > >
> >> > >> On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 7:49 AM, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> >> dpavlov@gmail.com>
> >> > >> wrote:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > I understand it is not so Apache-way from my side to ask
> >> volunteers to
> >> > >> do
> >> > >> > some things (instead of contributing it by myself).
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Dmitriy, I am not sure why you feel this is not the Apache way. No
> >> one
> >> > can
> >> > >> do everything themselves.  You should absolutely keep recruiting more
> >> > >> volunteers from the community.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> D.
> >> > >>
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> --
> >> --
> >> Maxim Muzafarov
> >>
> >

Re: Code inspection

[Dmitriy Pavlov]

Hi Maxim,

Thank you for stepping in. I've committed the first version here
'idea/ignite_inspections.xml'. We can move it to project default later when
all inspection problems are fixed.
Commit:
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=ignite.git;a=commit;h=3e0f04edf7cc0aa1631fbd1b9af1e9b87b697eb1


Igniters,

you can enable this profile using the following steps: Inspections
(icon)->Configure inspections->(settings button)->Import Profile->select
file and import.

Sincerely,
Dmitriy Pavlov

вт, 14 авг. 2018 г. в 16:31, Maxim Muzafarov :

> Dmitry and other Igniters,
>
> Previously you has suggested to commit `Code Inspections` into Ignite
> codebase.
> It makes sense for me. I think it's the easiest way to share this profile
> among community
> members and this inspection can be set as for the project level.
> So, I suggest:
>
> 1) According to Jetbrains documentation [1] the inspection profile can be
> placed to
> `/.idea/inspectionProfiles` with name `Project_Default.xml`
> (hope most of us using IDEA for development)
> This allows enable this profile automatically on per project level and will
> simplify
> development process according to rules accepted by our community.
>
> 2) I can file tickets and do some of them to fix inspection failures which
> Alexey mentioned
> earlier. Hope other members of community will help me with it.
>
> 3) I think `Inspections (Core)` TeamCity can be triggered as nightly build
> as it takes more
> than 4 hours. Suppose, inspection build in each PR is not the best way in
> our case. New run
> here [2].
>
> 4) We can tune our MTCGA.Bot to notify members with new inspection failures
> added by them.
>
>
> Also, I've taken Alexey's inspection file as an example, I’ve checked what
> we already discussed
> previously (e.g. `Anonymous class can be converted to lambda` should be
> disabled by default)
> and added these additional rules to it:
>  - General | Line is longer than allowed by code style
>  - Java | Code maturity | Call to 'printStackTrace()'
>  - Java | Code style issues | Unnecessary 'null' check before 'equals()'
> call
>
> If we decide to proceed I will attach this file to JIRA.
>
>
> [1] https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/code-inspection.html
> [2]
>
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore=buildTypeStatusDiv_IgniteTests24Java8=pull%2F3710%2Fhead
>
>
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 at 16:19 Dmitriy Pavlov  wrote:
>
> > Hi Dmitriy Govoruknin,
> >
> > It seems there is a lack of volunteers to apply code inspections to our
> CI
> > & patch submission process. Probably we could come back to your
> > initial idea about setting up inspection locally.
> >
> > Could you commit or share your IDEA inspection settings? I could apply it
> > at least on my machine and remove odd warning types one by one. What do
> you
> > think?
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Dmitriy Pavlov
> >
> > сб, 4 авг. 2018 г. в 1:22, Dmitriy Pavlov :
> >
> > > Ideally, I should not asking for people to solve something for me.
> > >
> > > I just want this idea did not disappear from our radar.
> > >
> > > пт, 3 авг. 2018 г. в 23:47, Dmitriy Setrakyan :
> > >
> > >> On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 7:49 AM, Dmitriy Pavlov  >
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> > I understand it is not so Apache-way from my side to ask volunteers
> to
> > >> do
> > >> > some things (instead of contributing it by myself).
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Dmitriy, I am not sure why you feel this is not the Apache way. No one
> > can
> > >> do everything themselves.  You should absolutely keep recruiting more
> > >> volunteers from the community.
> > >>
> > >> D.
> > >>
> > >
> >
> --
> --
> Maxim Muzafarov
>

Re: Code inspection

[Maxim Muzafarov]

Dmitry and other Igniters,

Previously you has suggested to commit `Code Inspections` into Ignite
codebase.
It makes sense for me. I think it's the easiest way to share this profile
among community
members and this inspection can be set as for the project level.
So, I suggest:

1) According to Jetbrains documentation [1] the inspection profile can be
placed to
`/.idea/inspectionProfiles` with name `Project_Default.xml`
(hope most of us using IDEA for development)
This allows enable this profile automatically on per project level and will
simplify
development process according to rules accepted by our community.

2) I can file tickets and do some of them to fix inspection failures which
Alexey mentioned
earlier. Hope other members of community will help me with it.

3) I think `Inspections (Core)` TeamCity can be triggered as nightly build
as it takes more
than 4 hours. Suppose, inspection build in each PR is not the best way in
our case. New run
here [2].

4) We can tune our MTCGA.Bot to notify members with new inspection failures
added by them.


Also, I've taken Alexey's inspection file as an example, I’ve checked what
we already discussed
previously (e.g. `Anonymous class can be converted to lambda` should be
disabled by default)
and added these additional rules to it:
 - General | Line is longer than allowed by code style
 - Java | Code maturity | Call to 'printStackTrace()'
 - Java | Code style issues | Unnecessary 'null' check before 'equals()'
call

If we decide to proceed I will attach this file to JIRA.


[1] https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/code-inspection.html
[2]
https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore=buildTypeStatusDiv_IgniteTests24Java8=pull%2F3710%2Fhead


On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 at 16:19 Dmitriy Pavlov  wrote:

> Hi Dmitriy Govoruknin,
>
> It seems there is a lack of volunteers to apply code inspections to our CI
> & patch submission process. Probably we could come back to your
> initial idea about setting up inspection locally.
>
> Could you commit or share your IDEA inspection settings? I could apply it
> at least on my machine and remove odd warning types one by one. What do you
> think?
>
> Sincerely,
> Dmitriy Pavlov
>
> сб, 4 авг. 2018 г. в 1:22, Dmitriy Pavlov :
>
> > Ideally, I should not asking for people to solve something for me.
> >
> > I just want this idea did not disappear from our radar.
> >
> > пт, 3 авг. 2018 г. в 23:47, Dmitriy Setrakyan :
> >
> >> On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 7:49 AM, Dmitriy Pavlov 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > I understand it is not so Apache-way from my side to ask volunteers to
> >> do
> >> > some things (instead of contributing it by myself).
> >>
> >>
> >> Dmitriy, I am not sure why you feel this is not the Apache way. No one
> can
> >> do everything themselves.  You should absolutely keep recruiting more
> >> volunteers from the community.
> >>
> >> D.
> >>
> >
>
-- 
--
Maxim Muzafarov

Re: Code inspection

[Dmitriy Pavlov]

Hi Dmitriy Govoruknin,

It seems there is a lack of volunteers to apply code inspections to our CI
& patch submission process. Probably we could come back to your
initial idea about setting up inspection locally.

Could you commit or share your IDEA inspection settings? I could apply it
at least on my machine and remove odd warning types one by one. What do you
think?

Sincerely,
Dmitriy Pavlov

сб, 4 авг. 2018 г. в 1:22, Dmitriy Pavlov :

> Ideally, I should not asking for people to solve something for me.
>
> I just want this idea did not disappear from our radar.
>
> пт, 3 авг. 2018 г. в 23:47, Dmitriy Setrakyan :
>
>> On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 7:49 AM, Dmitriy Pavlov 
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > I understand it is not so Apache-way from my side to ask volunteers to
>> do
>> > some things (instead of contributing it by myself).
>>
>>
>> Dmitriy, I am not sure why you feel this is not the Apache way. No one can
>> do everything themselves.  You should absolutely keep recruiting more
>> volunteers from the community.
>>
>> D.
>>
>

Re: Code inspection

[Dmitriy Pavlov]

Ideally, I should not asking for people to solve something for me.

I just want this idea did not disappear from our radar.

пт, 3 авг. 2018 г. в 23:47, Dmitriy Setrakyan :

> On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 7:49 AM, Dmitriy Pavlov 
> wrote:
>
> >
> > I understand it is not so Apache-way from my side to ask volunteers to do
> > some things (instead of contributing it by myself).
>
>
> Dmitriy, I am not sure why you feel this is not the Apache way. No one can
> do everything themselves.  You should absolutely keep recruiting more
> volunteers from the community.
>
> D.
>

Re: Code inspection

[Dmitriy Setrakyan]

On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 7:49 AM, Dmitriy Pavlov 
wrote:

>
> I understand it is not so Apache-way from my side to ask volunteers to do
> some things (instead of contributing it by myself).


Dmitriy, I am not sure why you feel this is not the Apache way. No one can
do everything themselves.  You should absolutely keep recruiting more
volunteers from the community.

D.

Re: Code inspection

[Dmitriy Pavlov]

Hi Igniters,

I understand it is not so Apache-way from my side to ask volunteers to do
some things (instead of contributing it by myself). But I still interested
- if we need code inspection or not,
- and who would like to spend odd hour and sett up some regular/manual
scans.

Sincerely,
Dmitriy Pavlov

пт, 30 мар. 2018 г. в 19:15, Andrey Kuznetsov :

> Hi, Dmitry!
>
> To me, it's better to disable the following:
>  Unnecessary 'this' qualifier -- this will, for example, warn on
> well-formed constructors.
>  'if' statement could be replaced with conditional expression -- let's
> decide on common sense basis whether it's appropriate, forceful
> refactorings could lead to non-readable code.
>
>
>
> 2018-03-30 18:57 GMT+03:00 Dmitry Pavlov :
>
> > Bumping up. Igniters, please reply and provide feedback on inspections
> > settings.
> >
> > I really prefer that we will merge inspections to codebase with clear
> > acknowledgment from active community members.
> >
> > чт, 29 мар. 2018 г. в 12:03, Alexey Goncharuk <
> alexey.goncha...@gmail.com
> > >:
> >
> > > From what I see, it should be rather easy to get a meaningful number of
> > > inspection failures to get something we can start working with.
> > >
> > > Namely, we have:
> > > Overly strong type cast (206) - mechanical work, easy to fix
> > > Assignment replaceable with operator assignment (23) - either
> mechanical
> > > work, or disable inspection
> > > 'expression.equals("literal")' rather than
> '"literal".equals(expression)'
> > > (49) - mechanical work
> > > 'size() == 0' replaceable with 'isEmpty()' (67) - mechanical work
> > > Missorted modifiers (121) - mechanical work
> > > Redundant field initialization (76) - mechanical work or disable
> > inspection
> > > Unnecessary 'this' qualifier (543) - mechanical work or disable
> > inspection
> > > 'if' statement could be replaced with conditional expression (244) -
> > > mechanical work or disable inspection
> > > Redundant throws declaration (100) - mechanical work or disable
> > inspection
> > > Redundant suppression (848) - mechanical work
> > > Missing @Override annotation (289) - mechanical work
> > > Property key/value delimiter doesn't match code style settings (2183) -
> > > disable inspection
> > > Unused Property (2180) - disable inspection
> > >
> > > For some of the inspections we have to agree whether we enforce a
> > > particular code style (for example, unnecessary 'this' qualifier).
> > > After this is done, the number of failed inspections will drop
> > dramatically
> > > and we can start tracking changes and pay more attention to other
> > > inspection categories.
> > >
> > > --AG
> > >
> > > 2018-03-28 21:19 GMT+03:00 Peter Ivanov :
> > >
> > > > Anton, Dmitry is right.
> > > >
> > > > We have to manually add condition when to consider build faulty based
> > on
> > > > how many failed inspection are there.
> > > >
> > > > For now I see this initiative as follows:
> > > > - find more or less correct set of inspections (there are lots of
> typos
> > > and
> > > > other irrelevant to code execution inspections) looking on the
> results
> > of
> > > > core module build, as it has ~85% of target code;
> > > > - add all modules to composite project and setup schedule at least
> > once a
> > > > week.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 at 19:09, Dmitry Pavlov 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Inspection suites should be failed manually by some fail condition.
> > > > >
> > > > > This question will become actual in future. How to fail such suite
> on
> > > TC?
> > > > >
> > > > > ср, 28 мар. 2018 г. в 18:54, Anton Vinogradov :
> > > > >
> > > > > > Peter,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why 44 errors are green?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1145974;
> > > > tab=buildResultsDiv=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsAop
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2018-03-28 16:27 GMT+03:00 Petr Ivanov :
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > After several problems, example run on Aleksey’s configuration
> is
> > > > > > > complete:
> > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1164652
> > > > <
> > > > > > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1164652>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 28 Mar 2018, at 10:28, Petr Ivanov 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Started
> > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1164002
> > > > <
> > > > > > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewQueued.html?itemId=1163998>
> > with
> > > > > > > Aleksey’s inspections profile.
> > > > > > > > Core (long) and AOP (short) modules will be tested as
> example.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> On 27 Mar 2018, at 19:38, Dmitry Pavlov <
> > dpavlov@gmail.com
> > > > > >  > > > > > > dpavlov@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Hi Petr,
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Could you please take inspections and run it on AI code base
> > in
> > > > > > > >> 

Re: Code inspection

[Andrey Kuznetsov]

Hi, Dmitry!

To me, it's better to disable the following:
 Unnecessary 'this' qualifier -- this will, for example, warn on
well-formed constructors.
 'if' statement could be replaced with conditional expression -- let's
decide on common sense basis whether it's appropriate, forceful
refactorings could lead to non-readable code.



2018-03-30 18:57 GMT+03:00 Dmitry Pavlov :

> Bumping up. Igniters, please reply and provide feedback on inspections
> settings.
>
> I really prefer that we will merge inspections to codebase with clear
> acknowledgment from active community members.
>
> чт, 29 мар. 2018 г. в 12:03, Alexey Goncharuk  >:
>
> > From what I see, it should be rather easy to get a meaningful number of
> > inspection failures to get something we can start working with.
> >
> > Namely, we have:
> > Overly strong type cast (206) - mechanical work, easy to fix
> > Assignment replaceable with operator assignment (23) - either mechanical
> > work, or disable inspection
> > 'expression.equals("literal")' rather than '"literal".equals(expression)'
> > (49) - mechanical work
> > 'size() == 0' replaceable with 'isEmpty()' (67) - mechanical work
> > Missorted modifiers (121) - mechanical work
> > Redundant field initialization (76) - mechanical work or disable
> inspection
> > Unnecessary 'this' qualifier (543) - mechanical work or disable
> inspection
> > 'if' statement could be replaced with conditional expression (244) -
> > mechanical work or disable inspection
> > Redundant throws declaration (100) - mechanical work or disable
> inspection
> > Redundant suppression (848) - mechanical work
> > Missing @Override annotation (289) - mechanical work
> > Property key/value delimiter doesn't match code style settings (2183) -
> > disable inspection
> > Unused Property (2180) - disable inspection
> >
> > For some of the inspections we have to agree whether we enforce a
> > particular code style (for example, unnecessary 'this' qualifier).
> > After this is done, the number of failed inspections will drop
> dramatically
> > and we can start tracking changes and pay more attention to other
> > inspection categories.
> >
> > --AG
> >
> > 2018-03-28 21:19 GMT+03:00 Peter Ivanov :
> >
> > > Anton, Dmitry is right.
> > >
> > > We have to manually add condition when to consider build faulty based
> on
> > > how many failed inspection are there.
> > >
> > > For now I see this initiative as follows:
> > > - find more or less correct set of inspections (there are lots of typos
> > and
> > > other irrelevant to code execution inspections) looking on the results
> of
> > > core module build, as it has ~85% of target code;
> > > - add all modules to composite project and setup schedule at least
> once a
> > > week.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 at 19:09, Dmitry Pavlov 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Inspection suites should be failed manually by some fail condition.
> > > >
> > > > This question will become actual in future. How to fail such suite on
> > TC?
> > > >
> > > > ср, 28 мар. 2018 г. в 18:54, Anton Vinogradov :
> > > >
> > > > > Peter,
> > > > >
> > > > > Why 44 errors are green?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1145974;
> > > tab=buildResultsDiv=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsAop
> > > > >
> > > > > 2018-03-28 16:27 GMT+03:00 Petr Ivanov :
> > > > >
> > > > > > After several problems, example run on Aleksey’s configuration is
> > > > > > complete:
> > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1164652
> > > <
> > > > > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1164652>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 28 Mar 2018, at 10:28, Petr Ivanov 
> > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Started
> > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1164002
> > > <
> > > > > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewQueued.html?itemId=1163998>
> with
> > > > > > Aleksey’s inspections profile.
> > > > > > > Core (long) and AOP (short) modules will be tested as example.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> On 27 Mar 2018, at 19:38, Dmitry Pavlov <
> dpavlov@gmail.com
> > > > >  > > > > > dpavlov@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Hi Petr,
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Could you please take inspections and run it on AI code base
> in
> > > > > > >> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%
> > > > > > 3E=buildTypeStatusDiv  > > > > >
> > viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore_
> > > > > > IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E=buildTypeStatusDiv>
> > > > > > >> ?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Sincerely,
> > > > > > >> Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> вт, 27 мар. 2018 г. в 19:27, Dmitry Pavlov <
> > 

Re: Code inspection

[Dmitry Pavlov]

Bumping up. Igniters, please reply and provide feedback on inspections
settings.

I really prefer that we will merge inspections to codebase with clear
acknowledgment from active community members.

чт, 29 мар. 2018 г. в 12:03, Alexey Goncharuk :

> From what I see, it should be rather easy to get a meaningful number of
> inspection failures to get something we can start working with.
>
> Namely, we have:
> Overly strong type cast (206) - mechanical work, easy to fix
> Assignment replaceable with operator assignment (23) - either mechanical
> work, or disable inspection
> 'expression.equals("literal")' rather than '"literal".equals(expression)'
> (49) - mechanical work
> 'size() == 0' replaceable with 'isEmpty()' (67) - mechanical work
> Missorted modifiers (121) - mechanical work
> Redundant field initialization (76) - mechanical work or disable inspection
> Unnecessary 'this' qualifier (543) - mechanical work or disable inspection
> 'if' statement could be replaced with conditional expression (244) -
> mechanical work or disable inspection
> Redundant throws declaration (100) - mechanical work or disable inspection
> Redundant suppression (848) - mechanical work
> Missing @Override annotation (289) - mechanical work
> Property key/value delimiter doesn't match code style settings (2183) -
> disable inspection
> Unused Property (2180) - disable inspection
>
> For some of the inspections we have to agree whether we enforce a
> particular code style (for example, unnecessary 'this' qualifier).
> After this is done, the number of failed inspections will drop dramatically
> and we can start tracking changes and pay more attention to other
> inspection categories.
>
> --AG
>
> 2018-03-28 21:19 GMT+03:00 Peter Ivanov :
>
> > Anton, Dmitry is right.
> >
> > We have to manually add condition when to consider build faulty based on
> > how many failed inspection are there.
> >
> > For now I see this initiative as follows:
> > - find more or less correct set of inspections (there are lots of typos
> and
> > other irrelevant to code execution inspections) looking on the results of
> > core module build, as it has ~85% of target code;
> > - add all modules to composite project and setup schedule at least once a
> > week.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 at 19:09, Dmitry Pavlov 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Inspection suites should be failed manually by some fail condition.
> > >
> > > This question will become actual in future. How to fail such suite on
> TC?
> > >
> > > ср, 28 мар. 2018 г. в 18:54, Anton Vinogradov :
> > >
> > > > Peter,
> > > >
> > > > Why 44 errors are green?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1145974;
> > tab=buildResultsDiv=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsAop
> > > >
> > > > 2018-03-28 16:27 GMT+03:00 Petr Ivanov :
> > > >
> > > > > After several problems, example run on Aleksey’s configuration is
> > > > > complete:
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1164652
> > <
> > > > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1164652>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > On 28 Mar 2018, at 10:28, Petr Ivanov 
> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Started
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1164002
> > <
> > > > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewQueued.html?itemId=1163998> with
> > > > > Aleksey’s inspections profile.
> > > > > > Core (long) and AOP (short) modules will be tested as example.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> On 27 Mar 2018, at 19:38, Dmitry Pavlov  > > >  > > > > dpavlov@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Hi Petr,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Could you please take inspections and run it on AI code base in
> > > > > >> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=
> > > > >
> > >
> IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%
> > > > > 3E=buildTypeStatusDiv  > > > >
> viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore_
> > > > > IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E=buildTypeStatusDiv>
> > > > > >> ?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Sincerely,
> > > > > >> Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> вт, 27 мар. 2018 г. в 19:27, Dmitry Pavlov <
> dpavlov@gmail.com
> > >:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> Alexey, thank you for bring this topic to top.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> What do you think about committing this inspections into Ignite
> > > code
> > > > > base?
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> What can be our next steps after demonstrating CI check is
> > possible
> > > > > >>> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=
> > > > >
> > >
> IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%
> > > > > 3E=buildTypeStatusDiv
> > > > > >>> ?
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Sincerely,
> > > > > >>> Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> вт, 27 мар. 2018 г. в 15:28, Alexey 

Re: Code inspection

[Alexey Goncharuk]

>From what I see, it should be rather easy to get a meaningful number of
inspection failures to get something we can start working with.

Namely, we have:
Overly strong type cast (206) - mechanical work, easy to fix
Assignment replaceable with operator assignment (23) - either mechanical
work, or disable inspection
'expression.equals("literal")' rather than '"literal".equals(expression)'
(49) - mechanical work
'size() == 0' replaceable with 'isEmpty()' (67) - mechanical work
Missorted modifiers (121) - mechanical work
Redundant field initialization (76) - mechanical work or disable inspection
Unnecessary 'this' qualifier (543) - mechanical work or disable inspection
'if' statement could be replaced with conditional expression (244) -
mechanical work or disable inspection
Redundant throws declaration (100) - mechanical work or disable inspection
Redundant suppression (848) - mechanical work
Missing @Override annotation (289) - mechanical work
Property key/value delimiter doesn't match code style settings (2183) -
disable inspection
Unused Property (2180) - disable inspection

For some of the inspections we have to agree whether we enforce a
particular code style (for example, unnecessary 'this' qualifier).
After this is done, the number of failed inspections will drop dramatically
and we can start tracking changes and pay more attention to other
inspection categories.

--AG

2018-03-28 21:19 GMT+03:00 Peter Ivanov :

> Anton, Dmitry is right.
>
> We have to manually add condition when to consider build faulty based on
> how many failed inspection are there.
>
> For now I see this initiative as follows:
> - find more or less correct set of inspections (there are lots of typos and
> other irrelevant to code execution inspections) looking on the results of
> core module build, as it has ~85% of target code;
> - add all modules to composite project and setup schedule at least once a
> week.
>
>
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 at 19:09, Dmitry Pavlov  wrote:
>
> > Inspection suites should be failed manually by some fail condition.
> >
> > This question will become actual in future. How to fail such suite on TC?
> >
> > ср, 28 мар. 2018 г. в 18:54, Anton Vinogradov :
> >
> > > Peter,
> > >
> > > Why 44 errors are green?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1145974;
> tab=buildResultsDiv=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsAop
> > >
> > > 2018-03-28 16:27 GMT+03:00 Petr Ivanov :
> > >
> > > > After several problems, example run on Aleksey’s configuration is
> > > > complete: https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1164652
> <
> > > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1164652>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > On 28 Mar 2018, at 10:28, Petr Ivanov  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Started https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1164002
> <
> > > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewQueued.html?itemId=1163998> with
> > > > Aleksey’s inspections profile.
> > > > > Core (long) and AOP (short) modules will be tested as example.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >> On 27 Mar 2018, at 19:38, Dmitry Pavlov  > >  > > > dpavlov@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Hi Petr,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Could you please take inspections and run it on AI code base in
> > > > >> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=
> > > >
> > IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%
> > > > 3E=buildTypeStatusDiv  > > > viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore_
> > > > IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E=buildTypeStatusDiv>
> > > > >> ?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Sincerely,
> > > > >> Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > >>
> > > > >> вт, 27 мар. 2018 г. в 19:27, Dmitry Pavlov  >:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> Alexey, thank you for bring this topic to top.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> What do you think about committing this inspections into Ignite
> > code
> > > > base?
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> What can be our next steps after demonstrating CI check is
> possible
> > > > >>> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=
> > > >
> > IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%
> > > > 3E=buildTypeStatusDiv
> > > > >>> ?
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Sincerely,
> > > > >>> Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> вт, 27 мар. 2018 г. в 15:28, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > alexey.goncha...@gmail.com
> > > >  :
> > > > >>>
> > > >  Bumping up.
> > > > 
> > > >  Attached is my local inspections profile exported from Idea.
> Let's
> > > run
> > > >  the first iteration and check if it differs significantly from
> > other
> > > >  community members.
> > > > 
> > > >  --AG
> > > > 
> > > >  2018-03-19 16:39 GMT+03:00 Petr Ivanov :
> > > > 
> > > > > Filed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7985 <
> > > > 

Re: Code inspection

[Peter Ivanov]

Anton, Dmitry is right.

We have to manually add condition when to consider build faulty based on
how many failed inspection are there.

For now I see this initiative as follows:
- find more or less correct set of inspections (there are lots of typos and
other irrelevant to code execution inspections) looking on the results of
core module build, as it has ~85% of target code;
- add all modules to composite project and setup schedule at least once a
week.


On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 at 19:09, Dmitry Pavlov  wrote:

> Inspection suites should be failed manually by some fail condition.
>
> This question will become actual in future. How to fail such suite on TC?
>
> ср, 28 мар. 2018 г. в 18:54, Anton Vinogradov :
>
> > Peter,
> >
> > Why 44 errors are green?
> >
> >
> >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1145974=buildResultsDiv=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsAop
> >
> > 2018-03-28 16:27 GMT+03:00 Petr Ivanov :
> >
> > > After several problems, example run on Aleksey’s configuration is
> > > complete: https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1164652 <
> > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1164652>
> > >
> > >
> > > > On 28 Mar 2018, at 10:28, Petr Ivanov  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Started https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1164002 <
> > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewQueued.html?itemId=1163998> with
> > > Aleksey’s inspections profile.
> > > > Core (long) and AOP (short) modules will be tested as example.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> On 27 Mar 2018, at 19:38, Dmitry Pavlov  >  > > dpavlov@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Hi Petr,
> > > >>
> > > >> Could you please take inspections and run it on AI code base in
> > > >> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=
> > >
> IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%
> > > 3E=buildTypeStatusDiv  > > viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore_
> > > IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E=buildTypeStatusDiv>
> > > >> ?
> > > >>
> > > >> Sincerely,
> > > >> Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > >>
> > > >> вт, 27 мар. 2018 г. в 19:27, Dmitry Pavlov :
> > > >>
> > > >>> Alexey, thank you for bring this topic to top.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> What do you think about committing this inspections into Ignite
> code
> > > base?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> What can be our next steps after demonstrating CI check is possible
> > > >>> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=
> > >
> IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%
> > > 3E=buildTypeStatusDiv
> > > >>> ?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Sincerely,
> > > >>> Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > >>>
> > > >>> вт, 27 мар. 2018 г. в 15:28, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > alexey.goncha...@gmail.com
> > >  :
> > > >>>
> > >  Bumping up.
> > > 
> > >  Attached is my local inspections profile exported from Idea. Let's
> > run
> > >  the first iteration and check if it differs significantly from
> other
> > >  community members.
> > > 
> > >  --AG
> > > 
> > >  2018-03-19 16:39 GMT+03:00 Petr Ivanov :
> > > 
> > > > Filed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7985 <
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7985> [1].
> > > 
> > > 
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> On 18 Mar 2018, at 00:56, Dmitry Pavlov 
> > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Hello Petr,
> > > >>
> > > >> Many members of the community would appreciate such additional
> > code
> > > > control, and it's a pity that no one made this happen. Agree?
> > > >>
> > > >> Could you please pick up this activity?
> > > >>
> > > >> It might be an idea to create 'IDEA Inspections' step to be run
> in
> > > > parallel with 'Build Apache Ignite'. WDYT? Would it work?
> > > >>
> > > >> Sincerely,
> > > >> Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > https://confluence.jetbrains.com/display/TCD10/Inspections <
> > > > https://confluence.jetbrains.com/display/TCD10/Inspections>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> пн, 12 мар. 2018 г. в 14:37, Dmitry Pavlov <
> dpavlov@gmail.com
> > > > >:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > >> Hi Dmitriy,
> > > >>
> > > >> would you pick up this activity?
> > > >>
> > > >> Sincerely,
> > > >> Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 14:09, Dmitry Pavlov  > > > >:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > >> What I can suggest now it is to take XML file with existing as
> is
> > > from
> > > > previous topic (I remember someone in community already prepared
> > > settings)
> > > > and set up TeamCity Run configuration as part of Run All Basic
> > Tests
> > > (per
> > > > 

Re: Code inspection

[Dmitry Pavlov]

Inspection suites should be failed manually by some fail condition.

This question will become actual in future. How to fail such suite on TC?

ср, 28 мар. 2018 г. в 18:54, Anton Vinogradov :

> Peter,
>
> Why 44 errors are green?
>
>
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1145974=buildResultsDiv=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsAop
>
> 2018-03-28 16:27 GMT+03:00 Petr Ivanov :
>
> > After several problems, example run on Aleksey’s configuration is
> > complete: https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1164652 <
> > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1164652>
> >
> >
> > > On 28 Mar 2018, at 10:28, Petr Ivanov  wrote:
> > >
> > > Started https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1164002 <
> > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewQueued.html?itemId=1163998> with
> > Aleksey’s inspections profile.
> > > Core (long) and AOP (short) modules will be tested as example.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> On 27 Mar 2018, at 19:38, Dmitry Pavlov   > dpavlov@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hi Petr,
> > >>
> > >> Could you please take inspections and run it on AI code base in
> > >> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=
> > IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%
> > 3E=buildTypeStatusDiv  > viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore_
> > IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E=buildTypeStatusDiv>
> > >> ?
> > >>
> > >> Sincerely,
> > >> Dmitriy Pavlov
> > >>
> > >> вт, 27 мар. 2018 г. в 19:27, Dmitry Pavlov :
> > >>
> > >>> Alexey, thank you for bring this topic to top.
> > >>>
> > >>> What do you think about committing this inspections into Ignite code
> > base?
> > >>>
> > >>> What can be our next steps after demonstrating CI check is possible
> > >>> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=
> > IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%
> > 3E=buildTypeStatusDiv
> > >>> ?
> > >>>
> > >>> Sincerely,
> > >>> Dmitriy Pavlov
> > >>>
> > >>> вт, 27 мар. 2018 г. в 15:28, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > alexey.goncha...@gmail.com
> >  :
> > >>>
> >  Bumping up.
> > 
> >  Attached is my local inspections profile exported from Idea. Let's
> run
> >  the first iteration and check if it differs significantly from other
> >  community members.
> > 
> >  --AG
> > 
> >  2018-03-19 16:39 GMT+03:00 Petr Ivanov :
> > 
> > > Filed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7985 <
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7985> [1].
> > 
> > 
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> On 18 Mar 2018, at 00:56, Dmitry Pavlov 
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hello Petr,
> > >>
> > >> Many members of the community would appreciate such additional
> code
> > > control, and it's a pity that no one made this happen. Agree?
> > >>
> > >> Could you please pick up this activity?
> > >>
> > >> It might be an idea to create 'IDEA Inspections' step to be run in
> > > parallel with 'Build Apache Ignite'. WDYT? Would it work?
> > >>
> > >> Sincerely,
> > >> Dmitriy Pavlov
> > >>
> > >
> > > https://confluence.jetbrains.com/display/TCD10/Inspections <
> > > https://confluence.jetbrains.com/display/TCD10/Inspections>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> пн, 12 мар. 2018 г. в 14:37, Dmitry Pavlov  > > >:
> > 
> > 
> > >> Hi Dmitriy,
> > >>
> > >> would you pick up this activity?
> > >>
> > >> Sincerely,
> > >> Dmitriy Pavlov
> > >>
> > >
> > > вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 14:09, Dmitry Pavlov  > > >:
> > 
> > 
> > >> What I can suggest now it is to take XML file with existing as is
> > from
> > > previous topic (I remember someone in community already prepared
> > settings)
> > > and set up TeamCity Run configuration as part of Run All Basic
> Tests
> > (per
> > > commit basis).
> > >>
> > >> If we don’t have XML, I suggest to enable build-in Idea
> inspections
> > > 'as is' on TeamCity and iteratively improve it according to found
> > issues.
> > >>
> > >> Dmitriy G., would you prepare PR and proof-of-concept TC run
> > > configuration?
> > >>
> > >> As discussion became really active, I think that means community
> is
> > > interested in static code checks.
> > >>
> > >
> > > вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 14:08, Dmitry Pavlov  > > >:
> > 
> > 
> > >> I was thinking about some quick check, which will automatically
> > > require minimum runs. Now, any committer can push changes to the
> > master,
> > > which break not only the inspection and 

Re: Code inspection

[Anton Vinogradov]

Peter,

Why 44 errors are green?

https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1145974=buildResultsDiv=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsAop

2018-03-28 16:27 GMT+03:00 Petr Ivanov :

> After several problems, example run on Aleksey’s configuration is
> complete: https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1164652 <
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1164652>
>
>
> > On 28 Mar 2018, at 10:28, Petr Ivanov  wrote:
> >
> > Started https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1164002 <
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewQueued.html?itemId=1163998> with
> Aleksey’s inspections profile.
> > Core (long) and AOP (short) modules will be tested as example.
> >
> >
> >
> >> On 27 Mar 2018, at 19:38, Dmitry Pavlov > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Petr,
> >>
> >> Could you please take inspections and run it on AI code base in
> >> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=
> IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%
> 3E=buildTypeStatusDiv  viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore_
> IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E=buildTypeStatusDiv>
> >> ?
> >>
> >> Sincerely,
> >> Dmitriy Pavlov
> >>
> >> вт, 27 мар. 2018 г. в 19:27, Dmitry Pavlov :
> >>
> >>> Alexey, thank you for bring this topic to top.
> >>>
> >>> What do you think about committing this inspections into Ignite code
> base?
> >>>
> >>> What can be our next steps after demonstrating CI check is possible
> >>> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=
> IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%
> 3E=buildTypeStatusDiv
> >>> ?
> >>>
> >>> Sincerely,
> >>> Dmitriy Pavlov
> >>>
> >>> вт, 27 мар. 2018 г. в 15:28, Alexey Goncharuk <
> alexey.goncha...@gmail.com
>  :
> >>>
>  Bumping up.
> 
>  Attached is my local inspections profile exported from Idea. Let's run
>  the first iteration and check if it differs significantly from other
>  community members.
> 
>  --AG
> 
>  2018-03-19 16:39 GMT+03:00 Petr Ivanov :
> 
> > Filed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7985 <
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7985> [1].
> 
> 
> >
> >
> >
> >> On 18 Mar 2018, at 00:56, Dmitry Pavlov 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello Petr,
> >>
> >> Many members of the community would appreciate such additional code
> > control, and it's a pity that no one made this happen. Agree?
> >>
> >> Could you please pick up this activity?
> >>
> >> It might be an idea to create 'IDEA Inspections' step to be run in
> > parallel with 'Build Apache Ignite'. WDYT? Would it work?
> >>
> >> Sincerely,
> >> Dmitriy Pavlov
> >>
> >
> > https://confluence.jetbrains.com/display/TCD10/Inspections <
> > https://confluence.jetbrains.com/display/TCD10/Inspections>
> >>
> >>
> >> пн, 12 мар. 2018 г. в 14:37, Dmitry Pavlov  > >:
> 
> 
> >> Hi Dmitriy,
> >>
> >> would you pick up this activity?
> >>
> >> Sincerely,
> >> Dmitriy Pavlov
> >>
> >
> > вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 14:09, Dmitry Pavlov  > >:
> 
> 
> >> What I can suggest now it is to take XML file with existing as is
> from
> > previous topic (I remember someone in community already prepared
> settings)
> > and set up TeamCity Run configuration as part of Run All Basic Tests
> (per
> > commit basis).
> >>
> >> If we don’t have XML, I suggest to enable build-in Idea inspections
> > 'as is' on TeamCity and iteratively improve it according to found
> issues.
> >>
> >> Dmitriy G., would you prepare PR and proof-of-concept TC run
> > configuration?
> >>
> >> As discussion became really active, I think that means community is
> > interested in static code checks.
> >>
> >
> > вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 14:08, Dmitry Pavlov  > >:
> 
> 
> >> I was thinking about some quick check, which will automatically
> > require minimum runs. Now, any committer can push changes to the
> master,
> > which break not only the inspection and style, but even the
> compilation. If
> > this control would be automatic, it can allow us make codebase
> better quite
> > fast. But I am afraid it is not realistic.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 13:42, Petr Ivanov   > mr.wei...@gmail.com>>:
> 
> 
> >> Sonar is powerful, yes, but it’s power in thoroughness. I.e. it does
> > its job well in cases of leisurely post-build analysis.
> >>
> >> I’d suggest we 

Re: Code inspection

[Petr Ivanov]

After several problems, example run on Aleksey’s configuration is complete: 
https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1164652 



> On 28 Mar 2018, at 10:28, Petr Ivanov  wrote:
> 
> Started https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1164002 
>  with Aleksey’s 
> inspections profile.
> Core (long) and AOP (short) modules will be tested as example.
> 
> 
> 
>> On 27 Mar 2018, at 19:38, Dmitry Pavlov > > wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Petr,
>> 
>> Could you please take inspections and run it on AI code base in
>> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E=buildTypeStatusDiv
>>  
>> 
>> ?
>> 
>> Sincerely,
>> Dmitriy Pavlov
>> 
>> вт, 27 мар. 2018 г. в 19:27, Dmitry Pavlov :
>> 
>>> Alexey, thank you for bring this topic to top.
>>> 
>>> What do you think about committing this inspections into Ignite code base?
>>> 
>>> What can be our next steps after demonstrating CI check is possible
>>> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E=buildTypeStatusDiv
>>> ?
>>> 
>>> Sincerely,
>>> Dmitriy Pavlov
>>> 
>>> вт, 27 мар. 2018 г. в 15:28, Alexey Goncharuk >> 
 Bumping up.
 
 Attached is my local inspections profile exported from Idea. Let's run
 the first iteration and check if it differs significantly from other
 community members.
 
 --AG
 
 2018-03-19 16:39 GMT+03:00 Petr Ivanov :
 
> Filed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7985 <
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7985> [1].
 
 
> 
> 
> 
>> On 18 Mar 2018, at 00:56, Dmitry Pavlov  wrote:
>> 
>> Hello Petr,
>> 
>> Many members of the community would appreciate such additional code
> control, and it's a pity that no one made this happen. Agree?
>> 
>> Could you please pick up this activity?
>> 
>> It might be an idea to create 'IDEA Inspections' step to be run in
> parallel with 'Build Apache Ignite'. WDYT? Would it work?
>> 
>> Sincerely,
>> Dmitriy Pavlov
>> 
> 
> https://confluence.jetbrains.com/display/TCD10/Inspections <
> https://confluence.jetbrains.com/display/TCD10/Inspections>
>> 
>> 
>> пн, 12 мар. 2018 г. в 14:37, Dmitry Pavlov  >:
 
 
>> Hi Dmitriy,
>> 
>> would you pick up this activity?
>> 
>> Sincerely,
>> Dmitriy Pavlov
>> 
> 
> вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 14:09, Dmitry Pavlov  >:
 
 
>> What I can suggest now it is to take XML file with existing as is from
> previous topic (I remember someone in community already prepared settings)
> and set up TeamCity Run configuration as part of Run All Basic Tests (per
> commit basis).
>> 
>> If we don’t have XML, I suggest to enable build-in Idea inspections
> 'as is' on TeamCity and iteratively improve it according to found issues.
>> 
>> Dmitriy G., would you prepare PR and proof-of-concept TC run
> configuration?
>> 
>> As discussion became really active, I think that means community is
> interested in static code checks.
>> 
> 
> вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 14:08, Dmitry Pavlov  >:
 
 
>> I was thinking about some quick check, which will automatically
> require minimum runs. Now, any committer can push changes to the master,
> which break not only the inspection and style, but even the compilation. 
> If
> this control would be automatic, it can allow us make codebase better 
> quite
> fast. But I am afraid it is not realistic.
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 13:42, Petr Ivanov >:
 
 
>> Sonar is powerful, yes, but it’s power in thoroughness. I.e. it does
> its job well in cases of leisurely post-build analysis.
>> 
>> I’d suggest we use it (if we will use it) in the following scenarios:
>> — some basic checks Sonar profile for Blocker bugs (it is fast) —
> something that cannot be passed to master;
>> — nightly or even weekly run with Full Sonar profile (600+ checks
> from Firebug, Codestyle, Coverage, etc.) for regression and overall code
> quality improvement goals.
>> 
>> Did not quite get you about 

Re: Code inspection

[Petr Ivanov]

Started https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1164002 
 with Aleksey’s 
inspections profile.
Core (long) and AOP (short) modules will be tested as example.



> On 27 Mar 2018, at 19:38, Dmitry Pavlov  wrote:
> 
> Hi Petr,
> 
> Could you please take inspections and run it on AI code base in
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E=buildTypeStatusDiv
> ?
> 
> Sincerely,
> Dmitriy Pavlov
> 
> вт, 27 мар. 2018 г. в 19:27, Dmitry Pavlov :
> 
>> Alexey, thank you for bring this topic to top.
>> 
>> What do you think about committing this inspections into Ignite code base?
>> 
>> What can be our next steps after demonstrating CI check is possible
>> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E=buildTypeStatusDiv
>> ?
>> 
>> Sincerely,
>> Dmitriy Pavlov
>> 
>> вт, 27 мар. 2018 г. в 15:28, Alexey Goncharuk >> :
>> 
>>> Bumping up.
>>> 
>>> Attached is my local inspections profile exported from Idea. Let's run
>>> the first iteration and check if it differs significantly from other
>>> community members.
>>> 
>>> --AG
>>> 
>>> 2018-03-19 16:39 GMT+03:00 Petr Ivanov :
>>> 
 Filed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7985 <
 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7985> [1].
>>> 
>>> 
 
 
 
> On 18 Mar 2018, at 00:56, Dmitry Pavlov  wrote:
> 
> Hello Petr,
> 
> Many members of the community would appreciate such additional code
 control, and it's a pity that no one made this happen. Agree?
> 
> Could you please pick up this activity?
> 
> It might be an idea to create 'IDEA Inspections' step to be run in
 parallel with 'Build Apache Ignite'. WDYT? Would it work?
> 
> Sincerely,
> Dmitriy Pavlov
> 
 
 https://confluence.jetbrains.com/display/TCD10/Inspections <
 https://confluence.jetbrains.com/display/TCD10/Inspections>
> 
> 
> пн, 12 мар. 2018 г. в 14:37, Dmitry Pavlov >:
>>> 
>>> 
> Hi Dmitriy,
> 
> would you pick up this activity?
> 
> Sincerely,
> Dmitriy Pavlov
> 
 
 вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 14:09, Dmitry Pavlov >:
>>> 
>>> 
> What I can suggest now it is to take XML file with existing as is from
 previous topic (I remember someone in community already prepared settings)
 and set up TeamCity Run configuration as part of Run All Basic Tests (per
 commit basis).
> 
> If we don’t have XML, I suggest to enable build-in Idea inspections
 'as is' on TeamCity and iteratively improve it according to found issues.
> 
> Dmitriy G., would you prepare PR and proof-of-concept TC run
 configuration?
> 
> As discussion became really active, I think that means community is
 interested in static code checks.
> 
 
 вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 14:08, Dmitry Pavlov >:
>>> 
>>> 
> I was thinking about some quick check, which will automatically
 require minimum runs. Now, any committer can push changes to the master,
 which break not only the inspection and style, but even the compilation. If
 this control would be automatic, it can allow us make codebase better quite
 fast. But I am afraid it is not realistic.
> 
> 
> 
 
 вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 13:42, Petr Ivanov >> mr.wei...@gmail.com>>:
>>> 
>>> 
> Sonar is powerful, yes, but it’s power in thoroughness. I.e. it does
 its job well in cases of leisurely post-build analysis.
> 
> I’d suggest we use it (if we will use it) in the following scenarios:
> — some basic checks Sonar profile for Blocker bugs (it is fast) —
 something that cannot be passed to master;
> — nightly or even weekly run with Full Sonar profile (600+ checks
 from Firebug, Codestyle, Coverage, etc.) for regression and overall code
 quality improvement goals.
> 
> Did not quite get you about push-to-master prohibition. Can you
 explain scenario in more details?
> 
> 
>> On 6 Mar 2018, at 13:27, Dmitry Pavlov > wrote:
>> 
>> Petr, I've heard Sonar is powerful tool.
>> 
>> Would it help us to prohibit commits to master w/o test run / too
 much
>> failed tests / too much inspection errors appeared?
>> 
 
> вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 13:22, Alexey Goncharuk <
 alexey.goncha...@gmail.com >:
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>> Dmitriy,
>>> 
>>> I like this idea a 

Re: Code inspection

[Dmitry Pavlov]

Hi Petr,

Could you please take inspections and run it on AI code base in
https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E=buildTypeStatusDiv
?

Sincerely,
Dmitriy Pavlov

вт, 27 мар. 2018 г. в 19:27, Dmitry Pavlov :

> Alexey, thank you for bring this topic to top.
>
> What do you think about committing this inspections into Ignite code base?
>
> What can be our next steps after demonstrating CI check is possible
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E=buildTypeStatusDiv
>  ?
>
> Sincerely,
> Dmitriy Pavlov
>
> вт, 27 мар. 2018 г. в 15:28, Alexey Goncharuk  >:
>
>> Bumping up.
>>
>> Attached is my local inspections profile exported from Idea. Let's run
>> the first iteration and check if it differs significantly from other
>> community members.
>>
>> --AG
>>
>> 2018-03-19 16:39 GMT+03:00 Petr Ivanov :
>>
>>> Filed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7985 <
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7985> [1].
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > On 18 Mar 2018, at 00:56, Dmitry Pavlov  wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Hello Petr,
>>> >
>>> > Many members of the community would appreciate such additional code
>>> control, and it's a pity that no one made this happen. Agree?
>>> >
>>> > Could you please pick up this activity?
>>> >
>>> > It might be an idea to create 'IDEA Inspections' step to be run in
>>> parallel with 'Build Apache Ignite'. WDYT? Would it work?
>>> >
>>> > Sincerely,
>>> > Dmitriy Pavlov
>>> >
>>>
>> > https://confluence.jetbrains.com/display/TCD10/Inspections <
>>> https://confluence.jetbrains.com/display/TCD10/Inspections>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > пн, 12 мар. 2018 г. в 14:37, Dmitry Pavlov >> >:
>>
>>
>>> > Hi Dmitriy,
>>> >
>>> > would you pick up this activity?
>>> >
>>> > Sincerely,
>>> > Dmitriy Pavlov
>>> >
>>>
>> > вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 14:09, Dmitry Pavlov >> >:
>>
>>
>>> > What I can suggest now it is to take XML file with existing as is from
>>> previous topic (I remember someone in community already prepared settings)
>>> and set up TeamCity Run configuration as part of Run All Basic Tests (per
>>> commit basis).
>>> >
>>> > If we don’t have XML, I suggest to enable build-in Idea inspections
>>> 'as is' on TeamCity and iteratively improve it according to found issues.
>>> >
>>> > Dmitriy G., would you prepare PR and proof-of-concept TC run
>>> configuration?
>>> >
>>> > As discussion became really active, I think that means community is
>>> interested in static code checks.
>>> >
>>>
>> > вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 14:08, Dmitry Pavlov >> >:
>>
>>
>>> > I was thinking about some quick check, which will automatically
>>> require minimum runs. Now, any committer can push changes to the master,
>>> which break not only the inspection and style, but even the compilation. If
>>> this control would be automatic, it can allow us make codebase better quite
>>> fast. But I am afraid it is not realistic.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>> > вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 13:42, Petr Ivanov > mr.wei...@gmail.com>>:
>>
>>
>>> > Sonar is powerful, yes, but it’s power in thoroughness. I.e. it does
>>> its job well in cases of leisurely post-build analysis.
>>> >
>>> > I’d suggest we use it (if we will use it) in the following scenarios:
>>> >  — some basic checks Sonar profile for Blocker bugs (it is fast) —
>>> something that cannot be passed to master;
>>> >  — nightly or even weekly run with Full Sonar profile (600+ checks
>>> from Firebug, Codestyle, Coverage, etc.) for regression and overall code
>>> quality improvement goals.
>>> >
>>> > Did not quite get you about push-to-master prohibition. Can you
>>> explain scenario in more details?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > > On 6 Mar 2018, at 13:27, Dmitry Pavlov >> > wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > Petr, I've heard Sonar is powerful tool.
>>> > >
>>> > > Would it help us to prohibit commits to master w/o test run / too
>>> much
>>> > > failed tests / too much inspection errors appeared?
>>> > >
>>>
>> > > вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 13:22, Alexey Goncharuk <
>>> alexey.goncha...@gmail.com >:
>>
>>
>>> > >
>>> > >> Dmitriy,
>>> > >>
>>> > >> I like this idea a lot. For example, the inspection profile should
>>> have
>>> > >> inspection 'Anonymous class can be converted to lambda' disabled
>>> because
>>> > >> quite a lot of such classes can be sent over the network (although
>>> even
>>> > >> anonymous classes are discourage for such purposes).
>>> > >>
>>> > >> I believe we can start with sharing somehow one of the profiles and
>>> then
>>> > >> iteratively improving it until the community is 

Re: Code inspection

[Dmitry Pavlov]

Alexey, thank you for bring this topic to top.

What do you think about committing this inspections into Ignite code base?

What can be our next steps after demonstrating CI check is possible
https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E=buildTypeStatusDiv
 ?

Sincerely,
Dmitriy Pavlov

вт, 27 мар. 2018 г. в 15:28, Alexey Goncharuk :

> Bumping up.
>
> Attached is my local inspections profile exported from Idea. Let's run the
> first iteration and check if it differs significantly from other community
> members.
>
> --AG
>
> 2018-03-19 16:39 GMT+03:00 Petr Ivanov :
>
>> Filed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7985 <
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7985> [1].
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 18 Mar 2018, at 00:56, Dmitry Pavlov  wrote:
>> >
>> > Hello Petr,
>> >
>> > Many members of the community would appreciate such additional code
>> control, and it's a pity that no one made this happen. Agree?
>> >
>> > Could you please pick up this activity?
>> >
>> > It might be an idea to create 'IDEA Inspections' step to be run in
>> parallel with 'Build Apache Ignite'. WDYT? Would it work?
>> >
>> > Sincerely,
>> > Dmitriy Pavlov
>> >
>>
> > https://confluence.jetbrains.com/display/TCD10/Inspections <
>> https://confluence.jetbrains.com/display/TCD10/Inspections>
>> >
>> >
>> > пн, 12 мар. 2018 г. в 14:37, Dmitry Pavlov > >:
>
>
>> > Hi Dmitriy,
>> >
>> > would you pick up this activity?
>> >
>> > Sincerely,
>> > Dmitriy Pavlov
>> >
>>
> > вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 14:09, Dmitry Pavlov > >:
>
>
>> > What I can suggest now it is to take XML file with existing as is from
>> previous topic (I remember someone in community already prepared settings)
>> and set up TeamCity Run configuration as part of Run All Basic Tests (per
>> commit basis).
>> >
>> > If we don’t have XML, I suggest to enable build-in Idea inspections 'as
>> is' on TeamCity and iteratively improve it according to found issues.
>> >
>> > Dmitriy G., would you prepare PR and proof-of-concept TC run
>> configuration?
>> >
>> > As discussion became really active, I think that means community is
>> interested in static code checks.
>> >
>>
> > вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 14:08, Dmitry Pavlov > >:
>
>
>> > I was thinking about some quick check, which will automatically require
>> minimum runs. Now, any committer can push changes to the master, which
>> break not only the inspection and style, but even the compilation. If this
>> control would be automatic, it can allow us make codebase better quite
>> fast. But I am afraid it is not realistic.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
> > вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 13:42, Petr Ivanov  mr.wei...@gmail.com>>:
>
>
>> > Sonar is powerful, yes, but it’s power in thoroughness. I.e. it does
>> its job well in cases of leisurely post-build analysis.
>> >
>> > I’d suggest we use it (if we will use it) in the following scenarios:
>> >  — some basic checks Sonar profile for Blocker bugs (it is fast) —
>> something that cannot be passed to master;
>> >  — nightly or even weekly run with Full Sonar profile (600+ checks from
>> Firebug, Codestyle, Coverage, etc.) for regression and overall code quality
>> improvement goals.
>> >
>> > Did not quite get you about push-to-master prohibition. Can you explain
>> scenario in more details?
>> >
>> >
>> > > On 6 Mar 2018, at 13:27, Dmitry Pavlov > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Petr, I've heard Sonar is powerful tool.
>> > >
>> > > Would it help us to prohibit commits to master w/o test run / too much
>> > > failed tests / too much inspection errors appeared?
>> > >
>>
> > > вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 13:22, Alexey Goncharuk <
>> alexey.goncha...@gmail.com >:
>
>
>> > >
>> > >> Dmitriy,
>> > >>
>> > >> I like this idea a lot. For example, the inspection profile should
>> have
>> > >> inspection 'Anonymous class can be converted to lambda' disabled
>> because
>> > >> quite a lot of such classes can be sent over the network (although
>> even
>> > >> anonymous classes are discourage for such purposes).
>> > >>
>> > >> I believe we can start with sharing somehow one of the profiles and
>> then
>> > >> iteratively improving it until the community is satisfied with the
>> result.
>> > >>
>> > >> Thoughts?
>> > >>
>>
> > >> 2018-03-06 12:06 GMT+03:00 Petr Ivanov  mr.wei...@gmail.com>>:
>
>
>> > >>
>> > >>> We can use Sonar as instrument for code analysis and test coverage
>> > >>> inspections.
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> >  On 6 Mar 2018, at 11:28, Dmitriy Govorukhin <
>> > >>> dmitriy.govoruk...@gmail.com >
>> wrote:
>> > 
>> >  Dmitriy,

Re: Code inspection

[Alexey Goncharuk]

Bumping up.

Attached is my local inspections profile exported from Idea. Let's run the
first iteration and check if it differs significantly from other community
members.

--AG

2018-03-19 16:39 GMT+03:00 Petr Ivanov :

> Filed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7985 <
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7985> [1].
>
>
>
> > On 18 Mar 2018, at 00:56, Dmitry Pavlov  wrote:
> >
> > Hello Petr,
> >
> > Many members of the community would appreciate such additional code
> control, and it's a pity that no one made this happen. Agree?
> >
> > Could you please pick up this activity?
> >
> > It might be an idea to create 'IDEA Inspections' step to be run in
> parallel with 'Build Apache Ignite'. WDYT? Would it work?
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Dmitriy Pavlov
> >
> > https://confluence.jetbrains.com/display/TCD10/Inspections <
> https://confluence.jetbrains.com/display/TCD10/Inspections>
> >
> >
> > пн, 12 мар. 2018 г. в 14:37, Dmitry Pavlov  >:
> > Hi Dmitriy,
> >
> > would you pick up this activity?
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Dmitriy Pavlov
> >
> > вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 14:09, Dmitry Pavlov  >:
> > What I can suggest now it is to take XML file with existing as is from
> previous topic (I remember someone in community already prepared settings)
> and set up TeamCity Run configuration as part of Run All Basic Tests (per
> commit basis).
> >
> > If we don’t have XML, I suggest to enable build-in Idea inspections 'as
> is' on TeamCity and iteratively improve it according to found issues.
> >
> > Dmitriy G., would you prepare PR and proof-of-concept TC run
> configuration?
> >
> > As discussion became really active, I think that means community is
> interested in static code checks.
> >
> > вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 14:08, Dmitry Pavlov  >:
> > I was thinking about some quick check, which will automatically require
> minimum runs. Now, any committer can push changes to the master, which
> break not only the inspection and style, but even the compilation. If this
> control would be automatic, it can allow us make codebase better quite
> fast. But I am afraid it is not realistic.
> >
> >
> >
> > вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 13:42, Petr Ivanov >:
> > Sonar is powerful, yes, but it’s power in thoroughness. I.e. it does its
> job well in cases of leisurely post-build analysis.
> >
> > I’d suggest we use it (if we will use it) in the following scenarios:
> >  — some basic checks Sonar profile for Blocker bugs (it is fast) —
> something that cannot be passed to master;
> >  — nightly or even weekly run with Full Sonar profile (600+ checks from
> Firebug, Codestyle, Coverage, etc.) for regression and overall code quality
> improvement goals.
> >
> > Did not quite get you about push-to-master prohibition. Can you explain
> scenario in more details?
> >
> >
> > > On 6 Mar 2018, at 13:27, Dmitry Pavlov > wrote:
> > >
> > > Petr, I've heard Sonar is powerful tool.
> > >
> > > Would it help us to prohibit commits to master w/o test run / too much
> > > failed tests / too much inspection errors appeared?
> > >
> > > вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 13:22, Alexey Goncharuk <
> alexey.goncha...@gmail.com >:
> > >
> > >> Dmitriy,
> > >>
> > >> I like this idea a lot. For example, the inspection profile should
> have
> > >> inspection 'Anonymous class can be converted to lambda' disabled
> because
> > >> quite a lot of such classes can be sent over the network (although
> even
> > >> anonymous classes are discourage for such purposes).
> > >>
> > >> I believe we can start with sharing somehow one of the profiles and
> then
> > >> iteratively improving it until the community is satisfied with the
> result.
> > >>
> > >> Thoughts?
> > >>
> > >> 2018-03-06 12:06 GMT+03:00 Petr Ivanov >:
> > >>
> > >>> We can use Sonar as instrument for code analysis and test coverage
> > >>> inspections.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> >  On 6 Mar 2018, at 11:28, Dmitriy Govorukhin <
> > >>> dmitriy.govoruk...@gmail.com >
> wrote:
> > 
> >  Dmitriy,
> > 
> >  As I understood, preview topic was of static code analysis in
> general.
> >  In this topic, I want to discuss only idea inspection rule.
> >  In future, of course, we can expаnd this rule to the TeamCity build.
> > 
> >  On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:16 AM, Nikolay Izhikov <
> nizhi...@apache.org >
> >  wrote:
> > 
> > > Hello, Igniters.
> > >
> > > +1 to automatic code style tools.
> > >
> > > Let's make it already!
> > > Do we have a ticket for it?
> > >
> > > Related discussion -
> > >> 

Re: Code inspection

[Petr Ivanov]

Filed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7985 
 [1].



> On 18 Mar 2018, at 00:56, Dmitry Pavlov  wrote:
> 
> Hello Petr,
> 
> Many members of the community would appreciate such additional code control, 
> and it's a pity that no one made this happen. Agree? 
> 
> Could you please pick up this activity?
> 
> It might be an idea to create 'IDEA Inspections' step to be run in parallel 
> with 'Build Apache Ignite'. WDYT? Would it work?
> 
> Sincerely,
> Dmitriy Pavlov
> 
> https://confluence.jetbrains.com/display/TCD10/Inspections 
> 
> 
> 
> пн, 12 мар. 2018 г. в 14:37, Dmitry Pavlov  >:
> Hi Dmitriy,
> 
> would you pick up this activity?
> 
> Sincerely,
> Dmitriy Pavlov
> 
> вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 14:09, Dmitry Pavlov  >:
> What I can suggest now it is to take XML file with existing as is from 
> previous topic (I remember someone in community already prepared settings) 
> and set up TeamCity Run configuration as part of Run All Basic Tests (per 
> commit basis).
> 
> If we don’t have XML, I suggest to enable build-in Idea inspections 'as is' 
> on TeamCity and iteratively improve it according to found issues.
> 
> Dmitriy G., would you prepare PR and proof-of-concept TC run configuration? 
> 
> As discussion became really active, I think that means community is 
> interested in static code checks.
> 
> вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 14:08, Dmitry Pavlov  >:
> I was thinking about some quick check, which will automatically require 
> minimum runs. Now, any committer can push changes to the master, which break 
> not only the inspection and style, but even the compilation. If this control 
> would be automatic, it can allow us make codebase better quite fast. But I am 
> afraid it is not realistic.
> 
> 
> 
> вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 13:42, Petr Ivanov  >:
> Sonar is powerful, yes, but it’s power in thoroughness. I.e. it does its job 
> well in cases of leisurely post-build analysis.
> 
> I’d suggest we use it (if we will use it) in the following scenarios:
>  — some basic checks Sonar profile for Blocker bugs (it is fast) — something 
> that cannot be passed to master;
>  — nightly or even weekly run with Full Sonar profile (600+ checks from 
> Firebug, Codestyle, Coverage, etc.) for regression and overall code quality 
> improvement goals.
> 
> Did not quite get you about push-to-master prohibition. Can you explain 
> scenario in more details?
> 
> 
> > On 6 Mar 2018, at 13:27, Dmitry Pavlov  > > wrote:
> >
> > Petr, I've heard Sonar is powerful tool.
> >
> > Would it help us to prohibit commits to master w/o test run / too much
> > failed tests / too much inspection errors appeared?
> >
> > вт, 6 мар. 2018 г. в 13:22, Alexey Goncharuk  > >:
> >
> >> Dmitriy,
> >>
> >> I like this idea a lot. For example, the inspection profile should have
> >> inspection 'Anonymous class can be converted to lambda' disabled because
> >> quite a lot of such classes can be sent over the network (although even
> >> anonymous classes are discourage for such purposes).
> >>
> >> I believe we can start with sharing somehow one of the profiles and then
> >> iteratively improving it until the community is satisfied with the result.
> >>
> >> Thoughts?
> >>
> >> 2018-03-06 12:06 GMT+03:00 Petr Ivanov  >> >:
> >>
> >>> We can use Sonar as instrument for code analysis and test coverage
> >>> inspections.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
>  On 6 Mar 2018, at 11:28, Dmitriy Govorukhin <
> >>> dmitriy.govoruk...@gmail.com > wrote:
> 
>  Dmitriy,
> 
>  As I understood, preview topic was of static code analysis in general.
>  In this topic, I want to discuss only idea inspection rule.
>  In future, of course, we can expаnd this rule to the TeamCity build.
> 
>  On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:16 AM, Nikolay Izhikov   >
>  wrote:
> 
> > Hello, Igniters.
> >
> > +1 to automatic code style tools.
> >
> > Let's make it already!
> > Do we have a ticket for it?
> >
> > Related discussion -
> >> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble 
> >> .
> > com/Static-code-analysis-for-Java-td22195.html
> >
> > В Вт, 06/03/2018 в 08:15 +, Dmitry Pavlov пишет:
> >> Hi Dmitriy,
> >>
> >> I think we should resurrect thread about addition of code
> >> inspections,
> > and
> >> later we can enable automatic