Thanks,
I will follow that path then,
pon., 10 lip 2023 o 19:03 Jon Meredith napisał(a):
> +1 from me too. I would support removing all of the optional checks from
> jar/test as I also hit issues with rat from time to time while iterating,
> as long as the CI system runs them and makes it ver
+1 from me too. I would support removing all of the optional checks from
jar/test as I also hit issues with rat from time to time while iterating,
as long as the CI system runs them and makes it very clear for any
committer there are failures.
On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 9:40 AM Josh McKenzie wrote:
> • Remove the checkstyle dependency from "jar" and "test"
> • Create a single "check" target that includes all the checks we expect to
> pass in the CI (currently Checkstyle, RAT, and Eclipse-Warnings), making this
> task the default.
+1 here.
(of note: haven't forgotten the request from this
On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 6:07 AM Jacek Lewandowski
wrote:
> Remove the checkstyle dependency from "jar" and "test"
> Create a single "check" target that includes all the checks we expect to pass
> in the CI (currently Checkstyle, RAT, and Eclipse-Warnings), making this task
> the default.
I supp
Maxim, I don't think it would work, especially this command:
"ant test -Dno-build=true"
would execute the whole pipeline up to the "test" target, skipping only the
"build" target. However, none of its dependencies would be missed. In Ant,
when a target is skipped due to some property, skipping
sorry, hit send early.
ant test is an interesting one as it seems impractical to run all tests
sequentially, but somebody may want to I suppose.
On Thu, Jul 6, 2023 at 11:53 AM Jon Meredith wrote:
> I think the -Dno-blah settings have usability issues. As they look at
> the property name, not t
I think the -Dno-blah settings have usability issues. As they look at
the property name, not the value, you cannot override them or default
them with ANT_ARGS or by importing to another ant build file. The way
rat.skip does it seems much better using configured value.
Ideally, I would like an eas
In my humble opinion, it is better to have only one plain and
straightforward build pipeline for the whole project, with custom
flags used to skip a particular step, than to have multiple pipelines
under the ant tool with multiple endpoints accordingly. I mean, all
the steps need to be lined up, wi
Great discussion, but I feel we still have no conclusion.
I fully support automatically setting up IDE(A) to run the necessary stuff
automatically in a developer-friendly environment, but let it be continued
in a separate thread.
I wouldn't say I like flags, especially if they have to be used o
There is a separate thread started and respective ticket for
generate-idea-files.
https://lists.apache.org/thread/o2fdkyv2skvf9ngy9jhpnhvo92qvr17m
CASSANDRA-18467
On Thu, 29 Jun 2023 at 16:54, Jeremiah Jordan
wrote:
> +100 I support making generate-idea-files auto setup everything in
> IntelliJ
From: Josh McKenzie
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2023 20:44
To: dev
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] When to run CheckStyle and other verificiations
NetApp Security WARNING: This is an external email. Do not click links or open
attachments unless you recognize the sender and
+100 I support making generate-idea-files auto setup everything in
IntelliJ for you. If you post a diff, I will test it.
On this proposal, I don’t really have an opinion one way or the other about
what the default is for local "ant jar”, if its slow I will figure out how
to turn it off, if its f
> In accord I added an opt-out for each hook, and will require such here as well
On for main branches, off for feature branches seems like it might blanket
satisfy this concern? Doesn't fix the "--atomic across 5 branches means style
checks and build on hook across those branches" which isn't ide
Should we just keep a consolidated for all kind of checks no-check flag and
get rid of the no-checkstyle one?
Trading one for one with Josh :-)
Best regards,
Ekaterina
On Thu, 29 Jun 2023 at 10:52, Josh McKenzie wrote:
> I really prefer separate tasks than flags. Flags are not listed in the
>
> I really prefer separate tasks than flags. Flags are not listed in the help
> message like "ant -p" and are not auto-completed in the terminal. That makes
> them almost undiscoverable for newcomers.
Please, no more flags. We are *more* than flaggy enough right now.
Having to dig through build
On Thu, 29 Jun 2023 at 13:30, Jacek Lewandowski
wrote:
> There is another target called "build", which retrieves dependencies, and
> then calls "build-project".
>
Is it intended to be called by a user ?
If not, please follow the ant style prefixing the target name with an
underscore (so that i
There is another target called "build", which retrieves dependencies, and
then calls "build-project".
czw., 29 cze 2023 o 12:33 Brandon Williams napisał(a):
> This sounds good to me. Can we shorten 'build-project' to just 'build'?
>
> Kind Regards,
> Brandon
>
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 3:22 AM
This sounds good to me. Can we shorten 'build-project' to just 'build'?
Kind Regards,
Brandon
On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 3:22 AM Jacek Lewandowski
wrote:
>
> So given all the feedback, I'm going to do the following:
>
> "jar" will depend on "check" target
> "build-project", "build-test" and "test"
So given all the feedback, I'm going to do the following:
"jar" will depend on "check" target
"build-project", "build-test" and "test" targets will not depend on "check"
target
"check" target will include checkstyle, rat and eclipse-warnings
There is an additional flag "no-check" to disable check
With git you can always opt-out by adding --no-verify flag to either push
or commit
I really prefer separate tasks than flags. Flags are not listed in the help
message like "ant -p" and are not auto-completed in the terminal. That
makes them almost undiscoverable for newcomers.
Want to have jar i
> nobody referred to running checks in a pre-push (or pre-commit) hook
In accord I added an opt-out for each hook, and will require such here as well…
as long as you can opt-out, its fine by me… I know I will likely opt-out, but
wouldn’t block such an effort
> Your point that pre-push hook mig
> The context is that we currently have 3 checks in the build:
>
> - Checkstyle,
> - Eclipse-Warnings,
> - RAT
And dependency-check (owasp).
> I want to discuss whether you are ok with extracting all checks to their
> distinct target and not running it automatically with the targets which dev
s, probably ...
>
>
> From: Jacek Lewandowski
> Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2023 9:08
> To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] When to run CheckStyle and other verificiations
>
> NetApp Security WARNING: This is an external e
atch would
take like 10 minutes, probably ...
From: Jacek Lewandowski
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2023 9:08
To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] When to run CheckStyle and other verificiations
NetApp Security WARNING: This is an external ema
ne stuff done.
>>
>> It would be pretty interesting to know the workflow of other people. I
>> think there would be a lot of insights how other people have it on a daily
>> basis when it comes to Cassandra development.
>>
>> ___
ty interesting to know the workflow of other people. I
> think there would be a lot of insights how other people have it on a daily
> basis when it comes to Cassandra development.
>
> ________
> From: David Capwell
> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2023 19:5
To: dev
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] When to run CheckStyle and other verificiations
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.
not running it automatically with the targets which devs usually run
> not running it automatically with the targets which devs usually run locally.
The checks tend to have an opt-out, such as -Dno-checkstyle=true… so its really
easy to setup your local environment to opt out what you do not care about… I
feel we should force people to opt-out rather than opt-in…
That would work as well Brandon, basically what is proposed in
CASSANDRA-18618, that is "check" target, actually needs to build the
project to perform some verifications - I suppose running "ant check"
should be sufficient.
- - -- --- - -
Jacek Lewandowski
pon., 26 cze 2
The "artifacts" task is not quite the same since it builds other things
like docs, which significantly contributes to longer build time. I don't
see why we couldn't add a new task that preserves the old behavior though,
"fulljar" or something like that.
Kind Regards,
Brandon
On Mon, Jun 26, 202
Berenguer, as I said, I started this discussion because it is confusing
that we do implicit and unexpected tasks.
It is inconsistent that we run checkstyle, but we skip static code analysis
like Eclipse-Warnings because that actually falsifies the advantages of
running checks automatically.
More ro
Hello everyone,
We can replace RAT with the appropriate checkstyle rule - the HeaderCheck,
I think. This will reduce the number of tools we now use and reduce the
build time as only modified files will be checked, and this, in turn, will
remove some of the concerns mentioned in the first message.
Just for awareness if you rebase thanks to CASSANDRA-18588 checkstyle
shouldn't be a problem anymore. If it is still let me know and I can
look into it.
On 26/6/23 13:11, Jacek Lewandowski wrote:
Yes, I've mentioned that there is a property we can set to skip
checkstyle.
Currently such a goa
Yes, I've mentioned that there is a property we can set to skip checkstyle.
Currently such a goal is "artifacts" which basically validates everything.
- - -- --- - -
Jacek Lewandowski
pon., 26 cze 2023 o 13:09 Mike Adamson napisał(a):
> While I like the idea of this
While I like the idea of this because of added time these checks take, I
was under the impression that checkstyle (at least) can be disabled with a
flag.
If we did do this, would it make sense to have a "release" or "commit"
target (or some other name) that ran a full build with all checks that c
I would prefer sthg that is totally transparent to me and not add one
more step I have to remember. Just to push/run CI to find out I missed
it and rinse and repeat... With the recent fix to checkstyle I am happy
as things stand atm. My 2cts
On 26/6/23 8:43, Jacek Lewandowski wrote:
Hi,
Th
36 matches
Mail list logo
