zookeeper-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Zili Chen <wander4...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Re: Re: Re: Clean up the all the checkstyle violations in the zookeeper-server module
Date Tue, 16 Jul 2019 01:17:53 GMT
Hi Justin,

Thanks for driving this thread. Please go ahead!

One thing I'd like to pick up is that ZOOKEEPER-3431
has a specific description and I'm afraid it could not
be an umbrella issue.

How about close all checkstyle related issues and start
a new issues structure as

Umbrella: Enable Google checkstyle configuration
  Subtask-1: Add silent Google checkstyle configuration
  Subtask-2: Enable Google checkstyle configuration on zookeeper-server
  Subtask-3: Enable Google checkstyle configuration on zookeeper-jute
  Subtask-4: Enable Google checkstyle configuration on zookeeper-prometheus
  ...

Best,
tison.


Enrico Olivelli <eolivelli@gmail.com> 于2019年7月16日周二 上午12:06写道:

> Il lun 15 lug 2019, 09:14 Justin Ling Mao <maoling199210191@sina.com> ha
> scritto:
>
> > - any advance for the discussion???- any objections about these two
> > things: 1.only clean the main-module:zookeeper-server;
>
>
> Please add jute and Prometheus module
>
> 2.using the google's checkstyle_style?-
>
>
> Works for me
>
> > who will head it up?  how about me?
> >
>
> Sure! Go for it. Thanks
>
> Enrico
>
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Justin Ling Mao" <maoling199210191@sina.com>
> > To: "dev" <dev@zookeeper.apache.org>
> > Subject: Re: Re: Re: Clean up the all the checkstyle violations in the
> > zookeeper-server module
> > Date: 2019-07-07 15:56
> >
> > 1.--->“we'd better first create an umbrella issue named "Enable
> checkstyle
> > rules" or sth”I had created ZOOKEEPER-3431 previously, and we can create
> a
> > series of sub-tasks under it.
> > 2.I think we still have two things which should be discussed:  2.1
> > Currently, we only need to enforce the checkstyle violations check in the
> > main-module:zookeeper-server, not included other modules?      IMO,
> because
> > the zookeeper-contrib, zookeeper-recipes are now not well-maintained.
> > and some violations in the zookeeper-jute are auto-generated. so focusing
> > on zookeeper-server is enough?
> >   2.2 What checkstyle template we will pick up? Now we have three
> > options:      A:[google_style](
> > https://checkstyle.sourceforge.io/google_style.html)
> > B:[bookkeeper_style] (
> >
> https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/blob/master/buildtools/src/main/resources/bookkeeper/checkstyle.xml
> )
> >     C:[hbase_style](
> >
> https://github.com/apache/hbase/blob/master/hbase-checkstyle/src/main/resources/hbase/checkstyle.xml
> )
> >     Which one will we choose?
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Enrico Olivelli <eolivelli@gmail.com>
> > To: dev@zookeeper.apache.org
> > Cc: maoling199210191@sina.com
> > Subject: Re: Re: Clean up the all the checkstyle violations in the
> > zookeeper-server module
> > Date: 2019-07-07 15:13
> >
> > Il dom 7 lug 2019, 01:29 Zili Chen <wander4096@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> > > Justin & Enrico,
> > >
> > > Receiving no opposition on this proposal, we could regard it as
> > > a consensus. According to bookkeeper#230 we'd better first create
> > > an umbrella issue named "Enable checkstyle rules" or sth. Under
> > > there we can finally decide the checkstyle configuration and
> > > start sub-tasks enabling per package.
> > >
> > > For keeping current checkstyle, I'd like to pick up that it's
> > > possible that we remain the current simple config for all pkgs,
> > > adding a config said copied from bookkeeper named
> > > "strict-checkstyle.xml", enabling per pkg, which contains @author
> > > tags and rules in simple config. Once we enabling the strict one
> > > for all pkgs. We can merge two configs into one.
> > >
> > +1 please go ahead
> > Enrico
> > > Best,
> > > tison.
> > >
> > >
> > > Enrico Olivelli <eolivelli@gmail.com> 于2019年7月6日周六 下午8:20写道:
> > >
> > > > Justin,
> > > > This is how we did it in Bookkeeper, we enabled checkstyle only for
> > group
> > > > of packages in the main module (the biggest one, bookkeeper-server)
> > > >
> > > > https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/230
> > > >
> > > > I suggest using that checkstyle config, I feel we won't have so many
> > > > violations.
> > > >
> > > > We can keep current checkstyle invokation that checks for @author
> tags
> > > as a
> > > > separate 'execution' of the plugin with a specific checkstyle file
> (as
> > > you
> > > > already said)
> > > >
> > > > I am happy to help, thank you for driving this effort
> > > >
> > > > Enrico
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Il sab 6 lug 2019, 11:33 Justin Ling Mao <maoling199210191@sina.com>
> > ha
> > > > scritto:
> > > >
> > > > > - 1.It seems that we had reached a consensus to work on this.- 2.I
> > also
> > > > > agree on the way: fix one package at a time, then another.- 3.Now
> Let
> > > us
> > > > > discuss some details:    - 3.1 how to make the checkstyle only
> check
> > > the
> > > > > package we specify? I found this:      URL:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/26455174/only-enable-some-checks-for-certain-inner-package
> > > > >     @Olivelli Could you give me more your insight?    - 3.2 What
> > rules
> > > > will
> > > > > we init in the checkstyle.xml?       3.2.1 - I also think the rules
> > > from
> > > > > the hbase is too strict which will cause too many,many violations.
> > > > >  3.2.2 - apply the "Google's Java Style Checkstyle Coverage" is a
> > good
> > > > > option? which seems to be more simplify and more suitable for us?
> > > > >      URL:https://checkstyle.sourceforge.io/google_style.html
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: Andor Molnar <andor@cloudera.com.INVALID>
> > > > > To: DevZooKeeper <dev@zookeeper.apache.org>
> > > > > Subject: Re: Clean up the all the checkstyle violations in the
> > > > > zookeeper-server module
> > > > > Date: 2019-07-02 13:22
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes. That way we only need to fix one package at a time.
> > > > > Andor
> > > > > On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 4:10 PM Zili Chen <wander4096@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Andor,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To be exact, "iterations" means we define the original rules
> > > > > > in checkstyle configuration at once and turn them on one package
> > > > > > after another, so iterations. Is it correct?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > tison.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Andor Molnar <andor@apache.org> 于2019年7月1日周一
下午9:09写道:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I like the idea of doing this in iterations.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Andor
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 2019. Jun 29., at 8:35, Zili Chen <wander4096@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > A solution could be, we remains current simple configuration
> > > > > > > > and introduce a so-called "strict-checkstyle.xml"
and apply
> > > > > > > > it per package. Once we enable it on every package,
we can
> > > > > > > > merge it into the simple configuration.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > tison.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Enrico Olivelli <eolivelli@gmail.com> 于2019年6月29日周六
> 下午2:19写道:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> Il sab 29 giu 2019, 07:59 Zili Chen <wander4096@gmail.com>
> ha
> > > > > > scritto:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>> Thank you Enrico. It seems my previous reply
delivered
> > > > > > > >>> into another thread. Repost below.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> Hi zookeepers,
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> I have proceeded ZOOKEEPER-3446 and been guided
to here
> > > > > > > >>> to discuss for a consensus before any more
efforts.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> In general, +1 on introducing and forcing
checkstyle.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> About the process, I agree that we firstly
reach a
> consensus
> > > > > > > >>> on the configuration and enable it per package.
In order
> for
> > > > > > > >>> our contributors to rebase as few times as
possible, we'd
> > > > > > > >>> better introduce all rules we all agree on
at once. Note
> that
> > > > > > > >>> we could always add rule if someone ask for
and agreed by
> the
> > > > > > > >>> community.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> Currently, we turn on checkstyle on all modules.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> This is quite important because we are using inlt
in order
> to
> > > > > prevent
> > > > > > > >> @author tags.
> > > > > > > >> This was part of the ant based precommit job
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Enrico
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Following the
> > > > > > > >>> process above, we firstly turn off it once
we apply the new
> > > > > > > >>> configuration, and then turn on it per package.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> If the community is willing to do this work,
a JIRA about
> the
> > > new
> > > > > > > >>> checkstyle configuration should be filed and
we continue
> the
> > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > >>> there. Generally, rules proposed by Enrico
are good start
> > point
> > > > and
> > > > > > > >>> I agree on we should not introduce anything
"fancy", but
> > > > according
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > >>> what is actually needed.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> Best,
> > > > > > > >>> tison.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> Enrico Olivelli <eolivelli@gmail.com>
于2019年6月29日周六
> > 下午1:51写道:
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>> @Zili Chen
> > > > > > > >>>> This is the original email thread. So
you can answer here.
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> Enrico
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> Il ven 28 giu 2019, 11:04 Norbert Kalmar
> > > > > > <nkalmar@cloudera.com.invalid
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> ha
> > > > > > > >>>> scritto:
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> Community is eager to jump on on this,
we already have
> pull
> > > > > > requests
> > > > > > > >>>>> cleaning up imports :)
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> First of all, sorry for the late reply
(I thought I
> already
> > > > > > answered
> > > > > > > >>>> this,
> > > > > > > >>>>> I remember reading it and drawing
up an answer. Oh well)
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> Some big patches are already reviewed,
I think we should
> > > commit
> > > > > as
> > > > > > > >> much
> > > > > > > >>>> as
> > > > > > > >>>>> possible before doing this refactor.
(I'll also try to
> rev
> > up
> > > > my
> > > > > > code
> > > > > > > >>>>> review/commit thread)
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> As for waiting for 3.6.0 - I don't
see the reason we
> > should.
> > > > > Unless
> > > > > > > >> of
> > > > > > > >>>>> course this would delay the release
too much...
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> I haven't checked HBase checkstyle
against our code, I
> > don't
> > > > > think
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > >>>>> should introduce anything "fancy".
What Enrico listed up
> > > sounds
> > > > > > like
> > > > > > > >> a
> > > > > > > >>>> good
> > > > > > > >>>>> starting point.
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> +1 on introducing and forcing checkstyle.
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> Regards,
> > > > > > > >>>>> Norbert
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 7:27 PM Enrico
Olivelli <
> > > > > > eolivelli@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Justin,
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Thank you so much for your help
in this.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> I would suggest to apply all of
the rules in one pass,
> > > > splitting
> > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > >>>> work
> > > > > > > >>>>>> per package.
> > > > > > > >>>>>> This way reviews will be easier,
we will limit the
> number
> > of
> > > > > > > >> commits
> > > > > > > >>>> and
> > > > > > > >>>>> we
> > > > > > > >>>>>> won't annoy too much the contributors
, asking for hard
> > > > rebases
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> This is how we did it on Apache
Bookkeeper
> > > > > > > >>>>>> https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/230
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> I will help review and commit
all of your patches,  it
> > will
> > > be
> > > > > > > >>> mostly a
> > > > > > > >>>>>> matter of code reformat without
any behavior change.
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Currently I am doing the same
kind of work on others
> > > projects
> > > > of
> > > > > > my
> > > > > > > >>>>>> company, so I perfectly know how
the work will go.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Before starting we must ensure
that:
> > > > > > > >>>>>> 1) community is willing to do
this work (we will force a
> > > > rebase
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > >>>> mostly
> > > > > > > >>>>>> every pending PR)
> > > > > > > >>>>>> 2) the proposed configuration
is accepted by the
> community
> > > > > > > >>>>>> 3) it is the good time to do it,
or should we wait for
> > 3.6.0
> > > > to
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > >>> out
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> I see you are referring to hbase
checkstyle file,  did
> > you
> > > > > > already
> > > > > > > >>>>> checked
> > > > > > > >>>>>> how much different it is from
current project style?
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Will we only need to remove trailing
spaces, reorder
> > > members,
> > > > > fix
> > > > > > > >>>>> imports,
> > > > > > > >>>>>> cut long lines ?
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Cheers
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Enrico
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Il dom 23 giu 2019, 15:11 Justin
Ling Mao <
> > > > > > > >> maoling199210191@sina.com
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> ha
> > > > > > > >>>>>> scritto:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> Background:zookeeper-server
is the main-module of the
> zk
> > > > > > > >> codebase.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> Unfortunately, there were
many checkstyle violations in
> > it.
> > > > To
> > > > > > > >>>> improve
> > > > > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> code quality and code standards,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> IMHO, it's time to clean up
the all the checkstyle
> > > > > > > >> violations(turn
> > > > > > > >>> on
> > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> <failOnViolation>true</failOnViolation>).
we can learn
> > from
> > > > the
> > > > > > > >>> hbase
> > > > > > > >>>>>> whose
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> checkstyle(almost 40+ rules)
is very strict and
> ensures a
> > > > very
> > > > > > > >>>> unified
> > > > > > > >>>>>> code
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> style.(
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/hbase/blob/master/hbase-checkstyle/src/main/resources/hbase/checkstyle.xml
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> )
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> My planing is: clean up the
all the checkstyle one rule
> > by
> > > > > > > >> another
> > > > > > > >>> to
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> avoid too much code changes
for review.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> Everything's hard in the beginning,
I have fired my
> first
> > > > shot(
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/992).
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> If this draft has accepted
by the community, I will
> > create
> > > > the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> corresponding sub-tasks for
more people joining this
> > work.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> Cited the comment from Enrico
Olivelli in the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> ZOOKEEPER-3431:--------------------------------------------------------------we
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> have to discuss this topic
with the community.I have
> > > > experience
> > > > > > > >> on
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> BookKeeper, we had to clean
up groups of packages.This
> is
> > > the
> > > > > > > >> kind
> > > > > > > >>> of
> > > > > > > >>>>>> stuff
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> that invalidates all of the
pending pull requests.I
> have
> > > > > already
> > > > > > > >>> sett
> > > > > > > >>>>> up
> > > > > > > >>>>>> a
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> basic checkstyle configuration
file and it is already
> > > active
> > > > > but
> > > > > > > >> it
> > > > > > > >>>> is
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> performing only very basic
checks (like no 'author'
> > tags).I
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > >>>>>> appreciate
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> very much if you want to drive
this effort, personally
> I
> > > > would
> > > > > > > >>> start
> > > > > > > >>>>> this
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> stuff after 3.6.0 release,
once we consolidate current
> > > master
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > >>> the
> > > > > > > >>>>>> maven
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> build. I would have sent an
email on the dev@ list
> > soon.We
> > > > > also
> > > > > > > >>> have
> > > > > > > >>>>> to
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> agree on the checkstyle configuration,
it is not
> > trivial, I
> > > > > would
> > > > > > > >>>> take
> > > > > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> file from HBase, BookKeeper
or other ASF projects on
> the
> > > > > Haddoop
> > > > > > > >>>>>> ecosystem.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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