accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Keith Turner <>
Subject Re: moving rat to a profile?
Date Tue, 17 Jun 2014 20:41:22 GMT
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Sean Busbey <> wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Billie Rinaldi <>
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Sean Busbey <>
> wrote:
> >
> > > My concern with a default-on profile is the same one I have with
> > > Christopher's suggestion that we recommend -Drat.ignoreErrors=true.
> > >
> > > It's going to make the "easy" path one where things aren't checked.
> > That's
> > > going to necessitate we check things periodically and during release.
> > >
> >
> > I don't understand how leaving the rat check on by default makes
> disabling
> > it the easy path.  I think it makes the check happen more often than not.
> > Even if we decide to suggest that new contributors just disable the
> check,
> > we should still be educating potential committers (and existing
> committers,
> > since this is a relatively new issue) about why the check sometimes fails
> > when you switch branches and how to fix it.
> >
> >
> Right now, there is a lot of noise coming from the rat plugin. In my
> experience, developers tend to optimize their work path. Things that add to
> build time tend to get de-prioritized, especially if they don't provide
> feedback on something the developer currently cares about.
> For example, when I am attempting to add a new IT or am attempting to fix
> one that currently shows failure, I tend to disable unit tests and
> findbugs. As far as I'm concerned this is normal and expected behavior.
> However, it is not unreasonable to presume that people similarly downgrade
> swaths of checks in their normal development. I doubt most of us run
> "verify" and the accompanying ITs for our normal dev cycle. I try to use
> -Psunny verify, but that easily increases build time several times over so
> it doesn't happen as often as I'd like.
> People are similarly going to change their normal build process to remove
> the rat plugin (either by disabling the profile or by always telling it to
> ignore errors), because it isn't what they're currently focused on. It's
> "easy" because it is less likely to interrupt their workflow.
> The people most likely to have that check run are those least capable of
> correctly handling its output: people new to the codebase who don't yet
> know the particulars of our build choices and how to tweak them.
> We rely on jenkins to alert us when someone makes a change that blows out
> an IT. What's the downside to doing the same for rat checks? The people who
> aren't going to opt into turning on the profile by default are the same who
> will manually turn it off for their local builds.

Having jenkins alert on rat failure seems like a good way to go.  As long
as jenkins is not constantly crying wolf when there is not a problem, so
that people ignore it.

> --
> Sean

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message