Agreed with Maxim. If we fail CI on the javadoc task, in my opinion it should be added to ant check probably.
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 at 12:40, Maxim Muzafarov <mmu...@apache.org> wrote: > We have "artifacts" ant target that depends on "checks" and "gen-doc", > from my point of view, it would be nice to have the "artifacts" > depending on "javadocs" as well. That way we can be sure that > everything related is in good order. > > On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 at 18:05, Brandon Williams <dri...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > If everything is good now, I think CI should fail if it regresses so > > we can keep it this way. > > > > Kind Regards, > > Brandon > > > > On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 10:49 AM Ekaterina Dimitrova > > <e.dimitr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > In CASSANDRA-18717 Maxim posted the javadoc fix. Stefan already made a > first pass of review so it seems we are not removing this ant task as it > was already fixed and there are people who find value of keeping it. > > > My question is do we want to fail CI if this regress or not? > > > > > > On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 at 22:44, Josh McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> > wrote: > > >> > > >> the problem is that the javadoc task is not given the attention > > >> it deserves. The failonerror is currently 'false' and the task itself > > >> is not a part of any build and/or release processes > > >> > > >> > > >> I just wrote a tool that explores the distribution of keys across > multiple sstables, I needed some of the tools classes but not much more. > Javadocs would have made that easy > > >> > > >> You know what? I agree with all that. If I had to jump into the > source for the JDK or other libraries every time I needed to work with them > that'd be annoying. > > >> > > >> BTW, I have managed to fix all the javadoc errors. > > >> > > >> Of course you have. :) Industrious as usual Maxim; thanks for > tackling that! > > >> > > >> So yeah. Depending on how long javadocs take to generate, I think > having them as part of our pre-commit rotation makes sense. Could even add > them to our site with something like an "API" section (gasp) here: > https://cassandra.apache.org/doc/latest/. > > >> > > >> Would certainly help motivate us to clarify the whole "what is an > external API we're committing to or not" discussions. > > >> > > >> On Thu, Aug 3, 2023, at 6:09 PM, Ekaterina Dimitrova wrote: > > >> > > >> Thank you Maxim. There is CASSANDRA-18717, I guess that patch should > go there. Keeping the task or not, the fix of the docs should go in anyway > IMHO. I will not be available the next few days, but I can help with > reviews when I am back. > > >> > > >> On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 at 17:44, Maxim Muzafarov <mmu...@apache.org> > wrote: > > >> > > >> Yes, I agree. The javadoc task should be part of our CI if we decide > > >> to keep it, to keep it buildable at all times. > > >> > > >> > > >> BTW, I have managed to fix all the javadoc errors. > > >> I have tested the task for both jdk11 and jdk17. > > >> > > >> Changes are here: > > >> > https://github.com/apache/cassandra/compare/trunk...Mmuzaf:cassandra:javadoc_build > > >> > > >> On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 at 21:20, Ekaterina Dimitrova < > e.dimitr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > Thank you Maxim, > > >> > > > >> > “ > > >> > > > >> > From my point of > > >> > view, the problem is that the javadoc task is not given the > attention > > >> > it deserves. The failonerror is currently 'false' and the task > itself > > >> > is not a part of any build and/or release processes, correct me if > I'm > > >> > wrong. > > >> > > > >> > So, > > >> > 1. Fix warnings/errors; > > >> > 2. Make the javadoc task part of the build (e.g. put it under > > >> > 'artifacts'), or make it part of the release process that is > regularly > > >> > checked on the CI; > > >> > 3. Publish/deploy the javadoc htmls for release in the special > > >> > directory of the cassandra website to give them a chance of being > > >> > indexed;“ > > >> > > > >> > This is aligned with what I saw and the two options mentioned at > the beginning - if we decide to keep it we should fix things and add the > task to CI, if we don’t because no one wants the html pages - then better > to remove it this ant task. > > >> > On your comment about 100 errors - it seems they are more. There is > a cap of 100 but when you fix them, more errors appear. > > >> > Further discussion can be found at CASSANDRA-17687 > > >> > > > >> > On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 at 14:21, Maxim Muzafarov <mmu...@apache.org> > wrote: > > >> >> > > >> >> Personally, I find javadocs quite useful, especially when htmls are > > >> >> indexed by search engines, which in turn increases the chances of > > >> >> finding the right answer faster (I have seen a lot of useful > javadocs > > >> >> in the source code). > > >> >> > > >> >> I have done a quick build of the javadocs: > > >> >> > > >> >> [javadoc] Building index for all the packages and classes... > > >> >> [javadoc] Building index for all classes... > > >> >> [javadoc] Building index for all classes... > > >> >> [javadoc] 100 errors > > >> >> [javadoc] 100 warnings > > >> >> > > >> >> 100 errors is no big deal and can be easily fixed. From my point of > > >> >> view, the problem is that the javadoc task is not given the > attention > > >> >> it deserves. The failonerror is currently 'false' and the task > itself > > >> >> is not a part of any build and/or release processes, correct me if > I'm > > >> >> wrong. > > >> >> > > >> >> So, > > >> >> 1. Fix warnings/errors; > > >> >> 2. Make the javadoc task part of the build (e.g. put it under > > >> >> 'artifacts'), or make it part of the release process that is > regularly > > >> >> checked on the CI; > > >> >> 3. Publish/deploy the javadoc htmls for release in the special > > >> >> directory of the cassandra website to give them a chance of being > > >> >> indexed; > > >> >> > > >> >> On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 at 17:11, Jeremiah Jordan < > jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> > > > >> >> > I don’t think anyone wants to remove the javadocs. This thread > is about removing the broken ant task which generates html files from them. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > +1 from me on removing the ant task. If someone feels the task > is useful they can always implement one that does not crash and add it back. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > -Jeremiah > > >> >> > > > >> >> > On Aug 3, 2023 at 9:59:55 AM, "Claude Warren, Jr via dev" < > dev@cassandra.apache.org> wrote: > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> I think that we can get more developers interested if there are > available javadocs. While many of the core classes are not going to be > touched by someone just starting, being able to understand what the > external touch points are and how they interact with other bits of the > system can be invaluable, particularly when you don't have the entire code > base in front of you. > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> For example, I just wrote a tool that explores the distribution > of keys across multiple sstables, I needed some of the tools classes but > not much more. Javadocs would have made that easy if I did not have the > source code in front of me. > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> I am -1 on removing the javadocs. > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 4:35 AM Josh McKenzie < > jmcken...@apache.org> wrote: > > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> If anything, the codebase could use a little more > package/class/method markup in some places > > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> I am impressed with how diplomatic and generous you're being > here Derek. :D > > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2023, at 5:46 PM, Miklosovic, Stefan wrote: > > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> That is a good idea. I would like to have Javadocs valid when > going through them in IDE. To enforce it, we would have to fix it first. If > we find a way how to validate Javadocs without actually rendering them, > that would be cool. > > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> There is a lot of legacy and rewriting of some custom-crafted > formatting of some comments might be quite a tedious task to do if it is > required to have them valid. I am in general for valid documentation and > even enforcing it but what to do with what is already there ... > > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> ________________________________________ > > >> >> >>> From: Jacek Lewandowski <lewandowski.ja...@gmail.com> > > >> >> >>> Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2023 23:38 > > >> >> >>> To: dev@cassandra.apache.org > > >> >> >>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] Shall we remove ant javadoc task? > > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> NetApp Security WARNING: This is an external email. Do not > click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know > the content is safe. > > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> With or without outputting JavaDoc to HTML, there are some > errors which we should maybe fix. We want to keep the documentation, but > there can be syntax errors which may prevent IDE generating a proper > preview. So, the question is - should we validate the JavaDoc comments as a > precommit task? Can it be done without actually generating HTML output? > > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> Thanks, > > >> >> >>> Jacek > > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> śr., 2 sie 2023, 22:24 użytkownik Derek Chen-Becker < > de...@chen-becker.org<mailto:de...@chen-becker.org>> napisał: > > >> >> >>> Oh, whoops, I guess I'm the only one that thinks Javadoc is > just the tool and/or it's output (not the markup itself) :P If anything, > the codebase could use a little more package/class/method markup in some > places, so I'm definitely only in favor of getting rid of the ant task. I > should amend my statement to be "...I suspect most people are not opening > their browsers and looking at Javadoc..." :) > > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> Cheers, > > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> Derek > > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2023, 1:30 PM Josh McKenzie < > jmcken...@apache.org<mailto:jmcken...@apache.org>> wrote: > > >> >> >>> most people are not looking at Javadoc when working on the > codebase. > > >> >> >>> I definitely use it extensively inside the IDE. But never as a > compiled set of external docs. > > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> Which is to say, I'm +1 on removing the target and I'd ask > everyone to keep javadoccing your classes and methods where things are > non-obvious or there's a logical coupling with something else in the > system. :) > > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2023, at 2:08 PM, Derek Chen-Becker wrote: > > >> >> >>> +1. If a need comes up for Javadoc we can fix it at that > point, but I suspect most people are not looking at Javadoc when working on > the codebase. > > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> Cheers, > > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> Derek > > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 11:11 AM Brandon Williams < > dri...@gmail.com<mailto:dri...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > >> >> >>> I don't think even if it works anyone is going to use the > output, so > > >> >> >>> I'm good with removal. > > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> Kind Regards, > > >> >> >>> Brandon > > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 11:50 AM Ekaterina Dimitrova > > >> >> >>> <e.dimitr...@gmail.com<mailto:e.dimitr...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > >> >> >>> > > > >> >> >>> > Hi everyone, > > >> >> >>> > We were looking into a user report around our ant javadoc > task recently. > > >> >> >>> > That made us realize it is not run in CI; it finishes > successfully even if there are hundreds of errors, some potentially > breaking doc pages. > > >> >> >>> > > > >> >> >>> > There was a ticket discussion where a few community members > mentioned that this task was probably unnecessary. Can we remove it, or > shall we fix it? > > >> >> >>> > > > >> >> >>> > Best regards, > > >> >> >>> > Ekaterina > > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> -- > > >> >> >>> > +---------------------------------------------------------------+ > > >> >> >>> | Derek Chen-Becker > | > > >> >> >>> | GPG Key available at https://keybase.io/dchenbecker< > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fkeybase.io%2Fdchenbecker&data=05%7C01%7CStefan.Miklosovic%40netapp.com%7C7ca04f0f58764996ab1e08db93a0de2a%7C4b0911a0929b4715944bc03745165b3a%7C0%7C0%7C638266091373361824%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=n%2BrDfikzzoQG%2Fg%2BRvNqEEE6vHP8ZmY1skeosesLK9v0%3D&reserved=0> > and | > > >> >> >>> | > https://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?search=derek%40chen-becker.org< > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpgp.mit.edu%2Fpks%2Flookup%3Fsearch%3Dderek%2540chen-becker.org&data=05%7C01%7CStefan.Miklosovic%40netapp.com%7C7ca04f0f58764996ab1e08db93a0de2a%7C4b0911a0929b4715944bc03745165b3a%7C0%7C0%7C638266091373518054%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Tnu5cIoIFZGqhaqOjCjW8yK%2BDTT2%2B0ifvFNs1pJO93s%3D&reserved=0> > | > > >> >> >>> | Fngrprnt: EB8A 6480 F0A3 C8EB C1E7 7F42 AFC5 AFEE 96E4 > 6ACC | > > >> >> >>> > +---------------------------------------------------------------+ > > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > > >> > > >> >
