ofbiz-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jacques Le Roux <jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSSION] Formatting in OFBiz OOTB
Date Thu, 21 Dec 2017 14:55:35 GMT
Actually it's not a [PROPOSAL] it's a [DISCUSSION]... kidding (but nevertheless you can add
your point 3 after mine ;))

Seriously: after your request to open a discussion: http://markmail.org/message/2bsp2fsbrdbd6dlb
I reported/wrote in this thread some facts mostly 
based on our previous discussion with Michael at OFBIZ-9877

The proposal would be simple. I suggest all committers to use an auto-formatter for Java code
(for Groovy I don't know yet) and that it should be, as 
much as possible, the same for all committers.

So we need to define the rules, and I propose as a basis for this discussion the formatter
I use in Eclipse which is derived from the basic Eclipse 
one for Java conventions. BTW I just updated it again (for Java 8 & 9), mine was based
on an old one.

The main changes I introduced is a line length of 180, to avoid automated lines split in patches
(180 sounds reasonable and a good compromise to me  
(below "-<setting id=" correspond to my changes).

     -<setting id="org.eclipse.jdt.core.formatter.comment.line_length" value="180"/>
     +<setting id="org.eclipse.jdt.core.formatter.comment.line_length" value="80"/>

Here are other minors changes I did, I have no strong opinions about them (I did more in the
past but finally simplified). Beware the changes are 

     -<setting id="org.eclipse.jdt.core.formatter.keep_then_statement_on_same_line"
     +<setting id="org.eclipse.jdt.core.formatter.keep_then_statement_on_same_line"
     -<setting id="org.eclipse.jdt.core.formatter.use_on_off_tags" value="true"/>
     +<setting id="org.eclipse.jdt.core.formatter.use_on_off_tags" value="false"/>
     -<setting id="org.eclipse.jdt.core.formatter.keep_else_statement_on_same_line"
     +<setting id="org.eclipse.jdt.core.formatter.keep_else_statement_on_same_line"
     -<setting id="org.eclipse.jdt.core.formatter.indent_switchstatements_compare_to_switch"
     +<setting id="org.eclipse.jdt.core.formatter.indent_switchstatements_compare_to_switch"
     -<setting id="org.eclipse.jdt.core.formatter.keep_imple_if_on_one_line" value="true"/>
     +<setting id="org.eclipse.jdt.core.formatter.keep_imple_if_on_one_line" value="false"/>
     -<setting id="org.eclipse.jdt.core.formatter.wrap_outer_expressions_when_nested"
     +<setting id="org.eclipse.jdt.core.formatter.wrap_outer_expressions_when_nested"

Of course, an auto-formatter is not a silver bullet and we need to accept and define exceptions.

For instance, one come instantly to my mind: when using


It easier to read when sub-expressions are split by lines, same is true for Java 8 Streams.

I think we can also accept different ways of splitting method signatures and other minor things
that we can adjust if needed later (eg the 2nd block 
of my changes)



Le 21/12/2017 à 12:53, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit :
> I'm not sure what is the proposal here
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 3:31 PM, Jacques Le Roux
> <jacques.le.roux@les7arts.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Following https://s.apache.org/9pTo (OFBIZ-9877) and
>> http://markmail.org/message/2bsp2fsbrdbd6dlb here is a discussion about
>> Formatting in OFBiz OOTB.
>> Note we had already discussions in the past and these should be used as
>> references in this discussion
>> http://markmail.org/message/calbmwzd4nj32l4g
>> http://markmail.org/message/qx3base6tolxfcjf
>> http://markmail.org/message/t2am3t6eev6zk5bj
>> I don't want to repeat myself too much but for the use of readers here, here
>> are some points I think are important.
>> Long in the past I suggested to share and, use as much as possible, the same
>> formatter (it must come from Eclipse because IntelliJ can load it but not
>> the reverse). But there has never been a consensual agreement on that with
>> the team. Years ago I proposed my own formatter. It's there as an attachment
>> of https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Coding+Conventions but
>> for a reason no longer downloadable. So I added the one I use now:
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpageattachments.action?pageId=776602
>> <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpageattachments.action?pageId=7766027>
>> To me (and others in above discussions, see notably Jacopo's point in the
>> 1st convo) the most important thing is to not arbitrarily cut lines with
>> automated formatter when creating fixing, improving or refactoring patch (it
>> could makes sense in formatting patch, but do we really want that?).
>> IMO Jacopo's point is the simplest solution to this problem: simply don't
>> format when patching, or at least do that in specific patches but we then
>> need to agree about lines lengths and IMO the longer the better (I use 180
>> for code and comments, but of course rarely get so far)
>> In OFBIZ-9877 Michael said
>>      <<I would really like to have a coding style where we can rely on, that
>> would make things much easier to maintain an even looking code. Maybe we
>> should decide on a mandatory formatting and do a big reformatting session
>> with no functional changes to have a common ground to continue with. But
>> this is another issue.>>
>> To be clear this is not top priority and not the subject of the current
>> discussion
>> About Formatting vs. refactoring:
>> My point is: refactoring is not formatting and because refactoring is by
>> itself already something which needs careful reviews, adding lines of
>> formatting, mix 2 types of things. So, again, the subject of the current
>> discussion, it's not functional vs not functional; but no formatting,
>> especially lines cut, in commits but formatting commits.
>> Another important point is the removing of trailing blanks. Why this one
>> also? Because both lines cuts and trailing blanks removing are pure
>> formatting things which when automated generated a lot of "false changes" in
>> patches/commits and make their reviews harder. Most of the time other
>> formatting points, like when and where to cut long method signature,
>> EntityQuery.use(delegator).from() stuff, etc. should not be a problem. If
>> you have ideas about that please share.
>> So that's mostly it, and the question is: should we share an IDE
>> auto-formatter? If so I propose to start from mine and refine, else what?
>> I understand people not using an IDE will feel less concerned. But I guess
>> they can also have an auto-formatter, it's maybe "just" harder to share :/
>> And about the reasons and goals of this discussion, I see at least
>> 1. easier review for patches (this is currently not a problem, people no
>> longer do that) and commits (but specific formatting commits).
>> 2. easier merging when coming from outside
>> 3. please adds your...
>> I propose to use a lazy consensus for this discussion, we don't want to vote
>> about formatting ;)
>> Thanks
>> Jacques

View raw message