Re: Ticket review checklist

[Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>]

Hi Dmitry,

Yes, I'll do that in the nearest days.

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <dp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Igniters, the idea was related to small refactorings co-located with main
> change.
>
> Main change itself indicates that existing code did not meet the criteria
> of practice. Approving of standalone refactorings instead contradicts with
> principle don't touch if it works. So I still like idea of co-located
> changes improving code, javadocs, style, etc.
>
> But let's not argue about this point now, let's summarize the undisputed
> points and add it to the wiki. Vladimir, would you please do it?
>
>
> ср, 25 апр. 2018 г. в 16:42, Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>:
>
> > Igniters,
> >
> > I agree with Vova.
> >
> > Don't fix if it works!
> >
> > If you 100% sure then it a useful addition to the product - just make a
> > separate ticket.
> >
> > В Ср, 25/04/2018 в 11:44 +0300, Vladimir Ozerov пишет:
> > > Guys,
> > >
> > > The problem with in-place refactorings is that you increase affected
> > scope.
> > > It is not uncommon to break compatibility or public contracts with even
> > > minor things. E.g. recently we decided drop org.jsr166 package in favor
> > of
> > > Java 8 classes. Innocent change. Result - broken storage. Another
> problem
> > > is conflicts. It is not uncommon to have long-lived branches which we
> > need
> > > to merge with master over and over again. And a lot of refactorings
> cause
> > > conflicts. It is much easier to resolve them if you know that logic was
> > not
> > > affected as opposed to cases when you need to resolve both renames and
> > > method extractions along with business-logic changes.
> > >
> > > I'd like to repeat - if you have a time for refactoring then you
> > definitely
> > > have a time to extract these changes to separate PR and submit a
> separate
> > > ticket. I am quite understand what "low priority" do you mean if you do
> > > refactorings on your own.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 10:52 PM, Andrey Kuznetsov <st...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1.
> > > >
> > > > Once again, I beg for "small refactoring permission" in a checklist.
> > As of
> > > > today, separate tickets for small refactorings has lowest priority,
> > since
> > > > they neither fix any flaw nor add new functionality. Also, the
> > attempts to
> > > > make issue-related code safer / cleaner / more readable in "real"
> pull
> > > > requests are typically rejected, since they contradict our current
> > > > guidelines.
> > > >
> > > > I understand this will require a bit more effort from
> > committer/maintainer,
> > > > but otherwise we will get constantly degrading code quality.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2018-04-24 18:52 GMT+03:00 Eduard Shangareev <
> > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com
> > > > > :
> > > > > Vladimir,
> > > > >
> > > > > I am not talking about massive/sophisticated refactoring. But I
> > believe
> > > > > that ask to extract some methods should be OK to do without an
> extra
> > > > > ticket.
> > > > >
> > > > > A checklist shouldn't be necessarily a set of certain rules but
> also
> > it
> > > > > could include suggestion and reminders.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 6:39 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Ed,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Refactoring is a separate task. If you would like to rework
> > exchange
> > > > >
> > > > > future
> > > > > > - please do this in a ticket "Refactor exchange task", nobody
> would
> > > > >
> > > > > against
> > > > > > this. This is just a matter of creating separate ticket and
> > separate
> > > >
> > > > PR.
> > > > > If
> > > > > > one have a time for refactoring, it should not be a problem for
> > him to
> > > > > > spend several minutes on JIRA and GitHub.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As far as documentation - what you describe is normal review
> > process,
> > > > >
> > > > > when
> > > > > > reviewer might want to ask contributor to fix something.
> Checklist
> > is a
> > > > > > different thing - this is a set of rules which must be followed
> by
> > > > >
> > > > > anyone.
> > > > > > I do not understand how you can define documentation in this
> > checklist.
> > > > > > Same problem with logging - what is "enough"?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Eduard Shangareev <
> > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't understand why you are so against refactoring.
> > > > > > > Code already smells like hell. Methods 200+ line is normal.
> > Exchange
> > > > > >
> > > > > > future
> > > > > > > is asking to be separated on several one. Transaction code
> could
> > > > > >
> > > > > > understand
> > > > > > > few people.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If we separate refactoring from development it would mean that
> > no one
> > > > > >
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > do it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2) Documentation.
> > > > > > > Everything which was asked by reviewers to clarify idea should
> be
> > > > > >
> > > > > > reflected
> > > > > > > in the code.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 3) Logging.
> > > > > > > Logging should be enough to troubleshoot the problem if someone
> > comes
> > > > >
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > user-list with an issue in the code.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 7:06 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <
> > > >
> > > > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > +1 to idea of checklist.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > +1 to refactoring and documenting code related to ticket in
> > +/-20
> > > >
> > > > LOC
> > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > least.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If we start to do it as part of our regular contribution,
> code
> > will
> > > > >
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > better, it would became common practice and part of Apache
> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > development culure.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If we will hope we will have free time to submit separate
> patch
> > > > >
> > > > > someday
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > have patience to complete patch-submission process, code will
> > > >
> > > > remain
> > > > > > > > undocumented and poor-readable.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Sincerely,
> > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > пт, 20 апр. 2018 г. в 18:56, Александр Меньшиков <
> > > > >
> > > > > sharplermc@gmail.com
> > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 4) Metrics.
> > > > > > > > > partially +1
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It makes sense to have some minimal code coverage for new
> > code in
> > > > >
> > > > > PR.
> > > > > > > > IMHO.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Also, we can limit the cyclomatic complexity of the new
> code
> > in
> > > >
> > > > PR
> > > > > > too.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 6) Refactoring
> > > > > > > > > -1
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I understand why people want to refactor old code.
> > > > > > > > > But I think refactoring should be always a separate task.
> > > > > > > > > And it's better to remove all refactoring from PR, if it's
> > not
> > > >
> > > > the
> > > > > > > sense
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > the issue.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 16:54 GMT+03:00 Andrey Kuznetsov <
> > stkuzma@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > What about adding the following item to the checklist:
> > when the
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > change
> > > > > > > > > adds
> > > > > > > > > > new functionality, then unit tests should also be
> > provided, if
> > > > >
> > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > technically possible?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > As for refactorings, in fact they are strongly
> discouraged
> > > >
> > > > today
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > unclear reason. Let's permit to make refactorings in the
> > > > >
> > > > > checklist
> > > > > > > > being
> > > > > > > > > > discussed. (Of cource, refactoring should relate to
> problem
> > > >
> > > > being
> > > > > > > > > solved.)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 16:16 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > >
> > > > vozerov@gridgain.com
> > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ed,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately some of these points are not good
> > candidates
> > > >
> > > > for
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > checklist because of these:
> > > > > > > > > > > - It must be clear and disallow *multiple
> > interpretations*
> > > > > > > > > > > - It must be *lightweight*, otherwise Ignite
> development
> > > >
> > > > would
> > > > > > > > become a
> > > > > > > > > > > nightmare
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > We cannot have "nice to have" points here. Checklist
> > should
> > > > > >
> > > > > > answer
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > question "is ticket eligible to be merged?"
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Code style.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > +1
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  2) Documentation
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > -1, it is impossible to define what is
> > "well-documented". A
> > > > >
> > > > > piece
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > > > > could be obvious for one contributor, and non-obvious
> for
> > > > > >
> > > > > > another.
> > > > > > > In
> > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > case this is not a blocker for merge. Instead, during
> > review
> > > > >
> > > > > one
> > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > ask
> > > > > > > > > > > implementer to add more docs, but it cannot be forced.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  3) Logging
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > -1, same problem - what is "enough logging?". Enough
> for
> > > >
> > > > whom?
> > > > > > How
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > understand whether it is enough or not?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  4) Metrics
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > -1, no clear boundaries, and decision on whether
> metrics
> > are
> > > >
> > > > to
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > added
> > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > not should be performed during design phase. As before,
> > it is
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > perfectly
> > > > > > > > > > > valid to ask contributor to add metrics with clear
> > > >
> > > > explanation
> > > > > > why,
> > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > this is not part of the checklist.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5) TC status
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > +1, already mentioned
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  6) Refactoring
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Strong -1. OOP is a slippery slope, there are no good
> > and bad
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > receipts
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > all cases, hence it cannot be used in a checklist.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > We can borrow useful rules from p.2, p.3 and p.4 if you
> > > >
> > > > provide
> > > > > > > clear
> > > > > > > > > > > definitions on how to measure them.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Vladimir.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Eduard Shangareev <
> > > > > > > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Also, I want to add some technical requirement. Let's
> > > >
> > > > discuss
> > > > > > > them.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Code style.
> > > > > > > > > > > > The code needs to be formatted according to coding
> > > >
> > > > guidelines
> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/
> > > > >
> > > > > Coding+Guidelines
> > > > > > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > > > > code must not contain TODOs without a ticket
> reference.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > It is highly recommended to make major formatting
> > changes
> > > >
> > > > in
> > > > > > > > existing
> > > > > > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > > > > > as a separate commit, to make review process more
> > > >
> > > > practical.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Documentation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Added code should be well-documented. Any methods
> that
> > > >
> > > > raise
> > > > > > > > > questions
> > > > > > > > > > > > regarding their code flow, invariants,
> synchronization,
> > > >
> > > > etc.,
> > > > > > > must
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > documented with comprehensive javadoc. Any reviewer
> can
> > > > >
> > > > > request
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > particular added method be documented. Also, it is a
> > good
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > practice
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > document old code in a 10-20 lines region around
> > changed
> > > > >
> > > > > code.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 3) Logging.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Make sure that there are enough logging added in
> every
> > > > >
> > > > > category
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > possible diagnostic in field. Check that logging
> > messages
> > > >
> > > > are
> > > > > > > > > properly
> > > > > > > > > > > > spelled.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 4) Metrics.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Are there any metrics that need to be exposed to
> user?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 5) TC status.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Recheck that there are no new failing tests
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 6) Refactoring.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > The code should be better than before:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >    - extract method from big one;
> > > > > > > > > > > >    - do anything else to make code clearer (don't
> > forget
> > > > >
> > > > > about
> > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > >    OOP-practise, replace if-else hell with
> inheritance
> > > > > > > > > > > >    - split refactoring (renaming, code format) from
> > actual
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > >    separate commit
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:23 PM, Eduard Shangareev <
> > > > > > > > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, guys.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that we should update maintainers list
> > before
> > > > > >
> > > > > > adding
> > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > review
> > > > > > > > > > > > > requirement.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > There should not be the situation when there is
> only
> > one
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > contributor
> > > > > > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is responsible for a component.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > We already have issues with review speed and
> response
> > > >
> > > > time.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 2:17 PM, Anton Vinogradov <
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vova,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Everything you described sound good to me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to propose to create special page at AI
> > Wiki
> > > >
> > > > and
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > describe
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > checklist.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case we'll find something should be
> > changed/improved
> > > >
> > > > it
> > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > update the page.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 0:53 GMT+03:00 Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > nizhikov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Vladimir.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for seting up this discussion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As we discussed, I think an important part of
> > this
> > > >
> > > > check
> > > > > > > list
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > compatibility rules.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * What should be backward compatible?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * How should we maintain it?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) If ticket changes public API or existing
> > > >
> > > > behavior,
> > > > > at
> > > > > > > > least
> > > > > > > > > > two
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commiters should approve the changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can learn from other open source project
> > > >
> > > > experience.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Apache Kafka [1], for example, requires
> KIP(kafka
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > improvement
> > > > > > > > > > > > proposal)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for *every* major change.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Major change definition includes public API.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/
> > > >
> > > > confluence/display/KAFKA/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kafka+Improvement+Proposals
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > В Чт, 19/04/2018 в 23:00 +0300, Vladimir Ozerov
> > пишет:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's glad to see our community becomes larger
> > every
> > > > >
> > > > > day.
> > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > grows
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes more and more difficult to manage
> > review and
> > > > > >
> > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > > > processes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > keep quality of our decisions at the proper
> > level.
> > > > >
> > > > > More
> > > > > > > > > > > > contributors,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commits, more components interlinked with
> each
> > other
> > > > >
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > subtle
> > > > > > > > > > > ways.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to propose to setup a formal
> > review
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > checklist.
> > > > > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > set of actions every reviewer needs to check
> > before
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > approving
> > > > > > > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > certain feature. Passing the checklist would
> be
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *necessary
> > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sufficient* phase before commit could be
> added
> > to
> > > >
> > > > the
> > > > > > main
> > > > > > > > > > branch.
> > > > > > > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > checklist would help us to detect a lot of
> > common
> > > > > >
> > > > > > problems
> > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > broken
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests or bad UX earlier, and would help
> > contributors
> > > > > >
> > > > > > lead
> > > > > > > > > their
> > > > > > > > > > > pull
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > requests to merge.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hallmarks of a good checklist:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - It must be followed be everyone without
> > exceptions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - It must be clear and disallow multiple
> > > > >
> > > > > interpretations
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - It must be lightweight, otherwise Ignite
> > > >
> > > > development
> > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > become
> > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nightmare
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - It must be non-blocking, i.e.
> inacessibility
> > of a
> > > > > >
> > > > > > single
> > > > > > > > > > > > contributor
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should not block ticket progress forever.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please let me know if you think the idea
> makes
> > > >
> > > > sense.
> > > > > If
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > agree
> > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > let's start defining action items for the
> > checklist.
> > > > >
> > > > > My
> > > > > > 2
> > > > > > > > > cents:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) All unit tests pass on TC without new
> > failures
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) If ticket targets specific component, it
> > should
> > > >
> > > > be
> > > > > > > > reviewed
> > > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > component's maintainer*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) If ticket changes public API or existing
> > > >
> > > > behavior,
> > > > > at
> > > > > > > > least
> > > > > > > > > > two
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commiters should approve the changes **
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vladimir.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * TBD: Review component list and define
> > maintainers;
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > define
> > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > do if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > maintainer is unavailable
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ** TBD: Define what is "public API"
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > >   Andrey Kuznetsov.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best regards,
> > > >   Andrey Kuznetsov.
> > > >
>

Re: Ticket review checklist

[Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>]

Anton,

Checklist is not about checking, but about expectations and trust.
Implementor should know what is expected from his patch. And reviewer is
not inspector. His goal is to agree with implementer that checklist
requirements s addressed. Consider thin client protocol compatibility.
Without checklist implementer doesn't know about the requirement and does
not address it. With checklist it is addressed. However, at the moment we
do not have a framework to check clients compatibiltiy and it is rather
hard to implement. So ideally implementer could demonstrate tests, but also
he can just state "I tested it manually", which is also acceptable. This is
where trust comes into play.

On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 6:45 PM, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org> wrote:

> Vova,
>
> Looks good to me.
>
> Please add clear explanation how to check 1.4, 1.5 and 2.x.
> Also, this should be published as a wiki page with refs to... eg. Coding
> Guidelines.
>
> пн, 7 мая 2018 г. в 17:26, Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>:
>
> > Igniters,
> >
> > This is the checklist I have at the moment. Please let me know if you
> have
> > any comments on existing items, or want to add or remove anything. It
> looks
> > like we may have not only strict rules, but *nice to have* points here as
> > well with help of *MUST*, *SHOULD* and *MAY* words as per RFC2119 [1]. So
> > please feel free to suggest optional items as well.
> >
> > 1) API
> > 1.1) API compatibility *MUST* be maintained between minor releases. Do
> not
> > remove existing methods or change their signatures, deprecate them
> instead
> > 1.2) Default behaviour "SHOULD NOT* be changed between minor releases,
> > unless absolutely needed. If change is made, it *MUST* be described in
> > "Migration Guide"
> > 1.3) New operation *MUST* be well-documented in code (javadoc,
> dotnetdoc):
> > documentation must contain method's purpose, description of parameters
> and
> > how their values affect the outcome, description of return value and it's
> > default, behavior in negative cases, interaction with other operations
> and
> > components
> > 1.4) API parity between Java and .NET platforms *SHOULD* be maintained
> when
> > operation makes sense on both platforms. If method cannot be implemented
> in
> > a platform immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be created and linked to
> > current ticket
> > 1.5) API parity between thin clients (Java, .NET) *SHOULD* be maintained
> > when operation makes sense on several clients. If method cannot be
> > implemented in a client immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be created
> and
> > linked to current ticket
> > 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user *MUST* have explanation how to
> > resolve, workaround or debug an error
> >
> > 2) Compatibility
> > 2.1) Persistence backward compatibility *MUST* be maintained between
> minor
> > releases. It should be possible to start newer version on data files
> > created by the previous version
> > 2.2) Thin client forward and backward compatibility *SHOULD* be
> maintained
> > between two consecutive minor releases. If compatibility cannot be
> > maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
> > 2.3) JDBC and ODBC forward and backward compatibility *SHOULD* be
> > maintained between two consecutive minor releases. If compatibility
> cannot
> > be maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
> >
> > 3) Tests
> > 3.1) New functionality *MUST* be covered with unit tests for both
> positive
> > and negative use cases
> > 3.2) All test suites *MUST* be run before merge to master..There *MUST*
> be
> > no new test failures
> >
> > 4) Code style *MUST* be followed as per Ignite's Coding Guidelines
> >
> > Vladimir.
> >
> > [1] https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
> >
> > On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Dmitry,
> > >
> > > Yes, I'll do that in the nearest days.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <dp...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Igniters, the idea was related to small refactorings co-located with
> > main
> > >> change.
> > >>
> > >> Main change itself indicates that existing code did not meet the
> > criteria
> > >> of practice. Approving of standalone refactorings instead contradicts
> > with
> > >> principle don't touch if it works. So I still like idea of co-located
> > >> changes improving code, javadocs, style, etc.
> > >>
> > >> But let's not argue about this point now, let's summarize the
> undisputed
> > >> points and add it to the wiki. Vladimir, would you please do it?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ср, 25 апр. 2018 г. в 16:42, Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>:
> > >>
> > >> > Igniters,
> > >> >
> > >> > I agree with Vova.
> > >> >
> > >> > Don't fix if it works!
> > >> >
> > >> > If you 100% sure then it a useful addition to the product - just
> make
> > a
> > >> > separate ticket.
> > >> >
> > >> > В Ср, 25/04/2018 в 11:44 +0300, Vladimir Ozerov пишет:
> > >> > > Guys,
> > >> > >
> > >> > > The problem with in-place refactorings is that you increase
> affected
> > >> > scope.
> > >> > > It is not uncommon to break compatibility or public contracts with
> > >> even
> > >> > > minor things. E.g. recently we decided drop org.jsr166 package in
> > >> favor
> > >> > of
> > >> > > Java 8 classes. Innocent change. Result - broken storage. Another
> > >> problem
> > >> > > is conflicts. It is not uncommon to have long-lived branches which
> > we
> > >> > need
> > >> > > to merge with master over and over again. And a lot of
> refactorings
> > >> cause
> > >> > > conflicts. It is much easier to resolve them if you know that
> logic
> > >> was
> > >> > not
> > >> > > affected as opposed to cases when you need to resolve both renames
> > and
> > >> > > method extractions along with business-logic changes.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > I'd like to repeat - if you have a time for refactoring then you
> > >> > definitely
> > >> > > have a time to extract these changes to separate PR and submit a
> > >> separate
> > >> > > ticket. I am quite understand what "low priority" do you mean if
> you
> > >> do
> > >> > > refactorings on your own.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 10:52 PM, Andrey Kuznetsov <
> > stkuzma@gmail.com
> > >> >
> > >> > > wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > +1.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Once again, I beg for "small refactoring permission" in a
> > checklist.
> > >> > As of
> > >> > > > today, separate tickets for small refactorings has lowest
> > priority,
> > >> > since
> > >> > > > they neither fix any flaw nor add new functionality. Also, the
> > >> > attempts to
> > >> > > > make issue-related code safer / cleaner / more readable in
> "real"
> > >> pull
> > >> > > > requests are typically rejected, since they contradict our
> current
> > >> > > > guidelines.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > I understand this will require a bit more effort from
> > >> > committer/maintainer,
> > >> > > > but otherwise we will get constantly degrading code quality.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > 2018-04-24 18:52 GMT+03:00 Eduard Shangareev <
> > >> > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com
> > >> > > > > :
> > >> > > > > Vladimir,
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > I am not talking about massive/sophisticated refactoring. But
> I
> > >> > believe
> > >> > > > > that ask to extract some methods should be OK to do without an
> > >> extra
> > >> > > > > ticket.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > A checklist shouldn't be necessarily a set of certain rules
> but
> > >> also
> > >> > it
> > >> > > > > could include suggestion and reminders.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 6:39 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > >> > vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > >> > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Ed,
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Refactoring is a separate task. If you would like to rework
> > >> > exchange
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > future
> > >> > > > > > - please do this in a ticket "Refactor exchange task",
> nobody
> > >> would
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > against
> > >> > > > > > this. This is just a matter of creating separate ticket and
> > >> > separate
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > PR.
> > >> > > > > If
> > >> > > > > > one have a time for refactoring, it should not be a problem
> > for
> > >> > him to
> > >> > > > > > spend several minutes on JIRA and GitHub.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > As far as documentation - what you describe is normal review
> > >> > process,
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > when
> > >> > > > > > reviewer might want to ask contributor to fix something.
> > >> Checklist
> > >> > is a
> > >> > > > > > different thing - this is a set of rules which must be
> > followed
> > >> by
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > anyone.
> > >> > > > > > I do not understand how you can define documentation in this
> > >> > checklist.
> > >> > > > > > Same problem with logging - what is "enough"?
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Eduard Shangareev <
> > >> > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > Igniters,
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > I don't understand why you are so against refactoring.
> > >> > > > > > > Code already smells like hell. Methods 200+ line is
> normal.
> > >> > Exchange
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > future
> > >> > > > > > > is asking to be separated on several one. Transaction code
> > >> could
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > understand
> > >> > > > > > > few people.
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > If we separate refactoring from development it would mean
> > that
> > >> > no one
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > will
> > >> > > > > > > do it.
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > 2) Documentation.
> > >> > > > > > > Everything which was asked by reviewers to clarify idea
> > >> should be
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > reflected
> > >> > > > > > > in the code.
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > 3) Logging.
> > >> > > > > > > Logging should be enough to troubleshoot the problem if
> > >> someone
> > >> > comes
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > > user-list with an issue in the code.
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 7:06 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> > >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > +1 to idea of checklist.
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > +1 to refactoring and documenting code related to ticket
> > in
> > >> > +/-20
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > LOC
> > >> > > > > > at
> > >> > > > > > > > least.
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > If we start to do it as part of our regular
> contribution,
> > >> code
> > >> > will
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > be
> > >> > > > > > > > better, it would became common practice and part of
> Apache
> > >> > Ignite
> > >> > > > > > > > development culure.
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > If we will hope we will have free time to submit
> separate
> > >> patch
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > someday
> > >> > > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > > > have patience to complete patch-submission process, code
> > >> will
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > remain
> > >> > > > > > > > undocumented and poor-readable.
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > Sincerely,
> > >> > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > пт, 20 апр. 2018 г. в 18:56, Александр Меньшиков <
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > sharplermc@gmail.com
> > >> > > > > > > :
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > 4) Metrics.
> > >> > > > > > > > > partially +1
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > It makes sense to have some minimal code coverage for
> > new
> > >> > code in
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > PR.
> > >> > > > > > > > IMHO.
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > Also, we can limit the cyclomatic complexity of the
> new
> > >> code
> > >> > in
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > PR
> > >> > > > > > too.
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > 6) Refactoring
> > >> > > > > > > > > -1
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > I understand why people want to refactor old code.
> > >> > > > > > > > > But I think refactoring should be always a separate
> > task.
> > >> > > > > > > > > And it's better to remove all refactoring from PR, if
> > it's
> > >> > not
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > the
> > >> > > > > > > sense
> > >> > > > > > > > of
> > >> > > > > > > > > the issue.
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 16:54 GMT+03:00 Andrey Kuznetsov <
> > >> > stkuzma@gmail.com>:
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > What about adding the following item to the
> checklist:
> > >> > when the
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > change
> > >> > > > > > > > > adds
> > >> > > > > > > > > > new functionality, then unit tests should also be
> > >> > provided, if
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > it's
> > >> > > > > > > > > > technically possible?
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > As for refactorings, in fact they are strongly
> > >> discouraged
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > today
> > >> > > > > > for
> > >> > > > > > > > some
> > >> > > > > > > > > > unclear reason. Let's permit to make refactorings in
> > the
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > checklist
> > >> > > > > > > > being
> > >> > > > > > > > > > discussed. (Of cource, refactoring should relate to
> > >> problem
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > being
> > >> > > > > > > > > solved.)
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 16:16 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > vozerov@gridgain.com
> > >> > > > > > :
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ed,
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately some of these points are not good
> > >> > candidates
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > for
> > >> > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > checklist because of these:
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > - It must be clear and disallow *multiple
> > >> > interpretations*
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > - It must be *lightweight*, otherwise Ignite
> > >> development
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > would
> > >> > > > > > > > become a
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > nightmare
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > We cannot have "nice to have" points here.
> Checklist
> > >> > should
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > answer
> > >> > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > question "is ticket eligible to be merged?"
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Code style.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > +1
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  2) Documentation
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > -1, it is impossible to define what is
> > >> > "well-documented". A
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > piece
> > >> > > > > > > of
> > >> > > > > > > > > code
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > could be obvious for one contributor, and
> > non-obvious
> > >> for
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > another.
> > >> > > > > > > In
> > >> > > > > > > > > any
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > case this is not a blocker for merge. Instead,
> > during
> > >> > review
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > one
> > >> > > > > > > can
> > >> > > > > > > > > ask
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > implementer to add more docs, but it cannot be
> > forced.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  3) Logging
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > -1, same problem - what is "enough logging?".
> Enough
> > >> for
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > whom?
> > >> > > > > > How
> > >> > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > understand whether it is enough or not?
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  4) Metrics
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > -1, no clear boundaries, and decision on whether
> > >> metrics
> > >> > are
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > to
> > >> > > > > > be
> > >> > > > > > > > > added
> > >> > > > > > > > > > or
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > not should be performed during design phase. As
> > >> before,
> > >> > it is
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > perfectly
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > valid to ask contributor to add metrics with clear
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > explanation
> > >> > > > > > why,
> > >> > > > > > > > but
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > this is not part of the checklist.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5) TC status
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > +1, already mentioned
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  6) Refactoring
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > Strong -1. OOP is a slippery slope, there are no
> > good
> > >> > and bad
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > receipts
> > >> > > > > > > > > > for
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > all cases, hence it cannot be used in a checklist.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > We can borrow useful rules from p.2, p.3 and p.4
> if
> > >> you
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > provide
> > >> > > > > > > clear
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > definitions on how to measure them.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > Vladimir.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Eduard
> Shangareev <
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Also, I want to add some technical requirement.
> > >> Let's
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > discuss
> > >> > > > > > > them.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Code style.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The code needs to be formatted according to
> coding
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > guidelines
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > Coding+Guidelines
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > .
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > code must not contain TODOs without a ticket
> > >> reference.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > It is highly recommended to make major
> formatting
> > >> > changes
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > in
> > >> > > > > > > > existing
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > code
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > as a separate commit, to make review process
> more
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > practical.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Documentation.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Added code should be well-documented. Any
> methods
> > >> that
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > raise
> > >> > > > > > > > > questions
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > regarding their code flow, invariants,
> > >> synchronization,
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > etc.,
> > >> > > > > > > must
> > >> > > > > > > > be
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > documented with comprehensive javadoc. Any
> > reviewer
> > >> can
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > request
> > >> > > > > > > > that
> > >> > > > > > > > > a
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > particular added method be documented. Also, it
> > is a
> > >> > good
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > practice
> > >> > > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > document old code in a 10-20 lines region around
> > >> > changed
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > code.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 3) Logging.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Make sure that there are enough logging added in
> > >> every
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > category
> > >> > > > > > > for
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > possible diagnostic in field. Check that logging
> > >> > messages
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > are
> > >> > > > > > > > > properly
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > spelled.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 4) Metrics.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Are there any metrics that need to be exposed to
> > >> user?
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 5) TC status.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Recheck that there are no new failing tests
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 6) Refactoring.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The code should be better than before:
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - extract method from big one;
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - do anything else to make code clearer
> (don't
> > >> > forget
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > about
> > >> > > > > > > some
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    OOP-practise, replace if-else hell with
> > >> inheritance
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - split refactoring (renaming, code format)
> > from
> > >> > actual
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > changes
> > >> > > > > > > > by
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    separate commit
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:23 PM, Eduard
> > Shangareev <
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, guys.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that we should update maintainers
> list
> > >> > before
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > adding
> > >> > > > > > > > this
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > review
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > requirement.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > There should not be the situation when there
> is
> > >> only
> > >> > one
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > contributor
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > who
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > is responsible for a component.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > We already have issues with review speed and
> > >> response
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > time.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 2:17 PM, Anton
> > Vinogradov
> > >> <
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vova,
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Everything you described sound good to me.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to propose to create special page
> at
> > AI
> > >> > Wiki
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > and
> > >> > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > > > > > describe
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > checklist.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case we'll find something should be
> > >> > changed/improved
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > it
> > >> > > > > > > will
> > >> > > > > > > > be
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > update the page.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 0:53 GMT+03:00 Nikolay Izhikov <
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > nizhikov@apache.org
> > >> > > > > > > > > :
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Vladimir.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for seting up this discussion.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As we discussed, I think an important part
> > of
> > >> > this
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > check
> > >> > > > > > > list
> > >> > > > > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > compatibility rules.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * What should be backward compatible?
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * How should we maintain it?
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) If ticket changes public API or
> > existing
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > behavior,
> > >> > > > > at
> > >> > > > > > > > least
> > >> > > > > > > > > > two
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commiters should approve the changes
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can learn from other open source
> project
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > experience.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Apache Kafka [1], for example, requires
> > >> KIP(kafka
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > improvement
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > proposal)
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for *every* major change.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Major change definition includes public
> API.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > confluence/display/KAFKA/
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kafka+Improvement+Proposals
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > В Чт, 19/04/2018 в 23:00 +0300, Vladimir
> > >> Ozerov
> > >> > пишет:
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's glad to see our community becomes
> > >> larger
> > >> > every
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > day.
> > >> > > > > > > But
> > >> > > > > > > > > as
> > >> > > > > > > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > grows
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes more and more difficult to
> manage
> > >> > review and
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > merge
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > processes
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > keep quality of our decisions at the
> > proper
> > >> > level.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > More
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > contributors,
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commits, more components interlinked
> with
> > >> each
> > >> > other
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > in
> > >> > > > > > > > subtle
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > ways.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to propose to setup a
> formal
> > >> > review
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > checklist.
> > >> > > > > > > > > This
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be a
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > set of actions every reviewer needs to
> > check
> > >> > before
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > approving
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > merge
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of a
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > certain feature. Passing the checklist
> > >> would be
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > *necessary
> > >> > > > > > > > but
> > >> > > > > > > > > > not
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sufficient* phase before commit could be
> > >> added
> > >> > to
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > the
> > >> > > > > > main
> > >> > > > > > > > > > branch.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > checklist would help us to detect a lot
> of
> > >> > common
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > problems
> > >> > > > > > > > > such
> > >> > > > > > > > > > a
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > broken
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests or bad UX earlier, and would help
> > >> > contributors
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > lead
> > >> > > > > > > > > their
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > pull
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > requests to merge.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hallmarks of a good checklist:
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - It must be followed be everyone
> without
> > >> > exceptions
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - It must be clear and disallow multiple
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > interpretations
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - It must be lightweight, otherwise
> Ignite
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > development
> > >> > > > > > > would
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > become
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nightmare
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - It must be non-blocking, i.e.
> > >> inacessibility
> > >> > of a
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > single
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > contributor
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should not block ticket progress
> forever.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please let me know if you think the idea
> > >> makes
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > sense.
> > >> > > > > If
> > >> > > > > > > we
> > >> > > > > > > > > > agree
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > on
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it,
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > let's start defining action items for
> the
> > >> > checklist.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > My
> > >> > > > > > 2
> > >> > > > > > > > > cents:
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) All unit tests pass on TC without new
> > >> > failures
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) If ticket targets specific component,
> > it
> > >> > should
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > be
> > >> > > > > > > > reviewed
> > >> > > > > > > > > > by
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > component's maintainer*
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) If ticket changes public API or
> > existing
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > behavior,
> > >> > > > > at
> > >> > > > > > > > least
> > >> > > > > > > > > > two
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commiters should approve the changes **
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts?
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vladimir.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * TBD: Review component list and define
> > >> > maintainers;
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > define
> > >> > > > > > > > > what
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > do if
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > maintainer is unavailable
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ** TBD: Define what is "public API"
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > --
> > >> > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > >> > > > > > > > > >   Andrey Kuznetsov.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > --
> > >> > > > Best regards,
> > >> > > >   Andrey Kuznetsov.
> > >> > > >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Ticket review checklist

[Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>]

Vova,

Looks good to me.

Please add clear explanation how to check 1.4, 1.5 and 2.x.
Also, this should be published as a wiki page with refs to... eg. Coding
Guidelines.

пн, 7 мая 2018 г. в 17:26, Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>:

> Igniters,
>
> This is the checklist I have at the moment. Please let me know if you have
> any comments on existing items, or want to add or remove anything. It looks
> like we may have not only strict rules, but *nice to have* points here as
> well with help of *MUST*, *SHOULD* and *MAY* words as per RFC2119 [1]. So
> please feel free to suggest optional items as well.
>
> 1) API
> 1.1) API compatibility *MUST* be maintained between minor releases. Do not
> remove existing methods or change their signatures, deprecate them instead
> 1.2) Default behaviour "SHOULD NOT* be changed between minor releases,
> unless absolutely needed. If change is made, it *MUST* be described in
> "Migration Guide"
> 1.3) New operation *MUST* be well-documented in code (javadoc, dotnetdoc):
> documentation must contain method's purpose, description of parameters and
> how their values affect the outcome, description of return value and it's
> default, behavior in negative cases, interaction with other operations and
> components
> 1.4) API parity between Java and .NET platforms *SHOULD* be maintained when
> operation makes sense on both platforms. If method cannot be implemented in
> a platform immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be created and linked to
> current ticket
> 1.5) API parity between thin clients (Java, .NET) *SHOULD* be maintained
> when operation makes sense on several clients. If method cannot be
> implemented in a client immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be created and
> linked to current ticket
> 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user *MUST* have explanation how to
> resolve, workaround or debug an error
>
> 2) Compatibility
> 2.1) Persistence backward compatibility *MUST* be maintained between minor
> releases. It should be possible to start newer version on data files
> created by the previous version
> 2.2) Thin client forward and backward compatibility *SHOULD* be maintained
> between two consecutive minor releases. If compatibility cannot be
> maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
> 2.3) JDBC and ODBC forward and backward compatibility *SHOULD* be
> maintained between two consecutive minor releases. If compatibility cannot
> be maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
>
> 3) Tests
> 3.1) New functionality *MUST* be covered with unit tests for both positive
> and negative use cases
> 3.2) All test suites *MUST* be run before merge to master..There *MUST* be
> no new test failures
>
> 4) Code style *MUST* be followed as per Ignite's Coding Guidelines
>
> Vladimir.
>
> [1] https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
>
> On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Dmitry,
> >
> > Yes, I'll do that in the nearest days.
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <dp...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Igniters, the idea was related to small refactorings co-located with
> main
> >> change.
> >>
> >> Main change itself indicates that existing code did not meet the
> criteria
> >> of practice. Approving of standalone refactorings instead contradicts
> with
> >> principle don't touch if it works. So I still like idea of co-located
> >> changes improving code, javadocs, style, etc.
> >>
> >> But let's not argue about this point now, let's summarize the undisputed
> >> points and add it to the wiki. Vladimir, would you please do it?
> >>
> >>
> >> ср, 25 апр. 2018 г. в 16:42, Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>:
> >>
> >> > Igniters,
> >> >
> >> > I agree with Vova.
> >> >
> >> > Don't fix if it works!
> >> >
> >> > If you 100% sure then it a useful addition to the product - just make
> a
> >> > separate ticket.
> >> >
> >> > В Ср, 25/04/2018 в 11:44 +0300, Vladimir Ozerov пишет:
> >> > > Guys,
> >> > >
> >> > > The problem with in-place refactorings is that you increase affected
> >> > scope.
> >> > > It is not uncommon to break compatibility or public contracts with
> >> even
> >> > > minor things. E.g. recently we decided drop org.jsr166 package in
> >> favor
> >> > of
> >> > > Java 8 classes. Innocent change. Result - broken storage. Another
> >> problem
> >> > > is conflicts. It is not uncommon to have long-lived branches which
> we
> >> > need
> >> > > to merge with master over and over again. And a lot of refactorings
> >> cause
> >> > > conflicts. It is much easier to resolve them if you know that logic
> >> was
> >> > not
> >> > > affected as opposed to cases when you need to resolve both renames
> and
> >> > > method extractions along with business-logic changes.
> >> > >
> >> > > I'd like to repeat - if you have a time for refactoring then you
> >> > definitely
> >> > > have a time to extract these changes to separate PR and submit a
> >> separate
> >> > > ticket. I am quite understand what "low priority" do you mean if you
> >> do
> >> > > refactorings on your own.
> >> > >
> >> > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 10:52 PM, Andrey Kuznetsov <
> stkuzma@gmail.com
> >> >
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > +1.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Once again, I beg for "small refactoring permission" in a
> checklist.
> >> > As of
> >> > > > today, separate tickets for small refactorings has lowest
> priority,
> >> > since
> >> > > > they neither fix any flaw nor add new functionality. Also, the
> >> > attempts to
> >> > > > make issue-related code safer / cleaner / more readable in "real"
> >> pull
> >> > > > requests are typically rejected, since they contradict our current
> >> > > > guidelines.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I understand this will require a bit more effort from
> >> > committer/maintainer,
> >> > > > but otherwise we will get constantly degrading code quality.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > 2018-04-24 18:52 GMT+03:00 Eduard Shangareev <
> >> > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com
> >> > > > > :
> >> > > > > Vladimir,
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > I am not talking about massive/sophisticated refactoring. But I
> >> > believe
> >> > > > > that ask to extract some methods should be OK to do without an
> >> extra
> >> > > > > ticket.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > A checklist shouldn't be necessarily a set of certain rules but
> >> also
> >> > it
> >> > > > > could include suggestion and reminders.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 6:39 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> >> > vozerov@gridgain.com>
> >> > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > Ed,
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Refactoring is a separate task. If you would like to rework
> >> > exchange
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > future
> >> > > > > > - please do this in a ticket "Refactor exchange task", nobody
> >> would
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > against
> >> > > > > > this. This is just a matter of creating separate ticket and
> >> > separate
> >> > > >
> >> > > > PR.
> >> > > > > If
> >> > > > > > one have a time for refactoring, it should not be a problem
> for
> >> > him to
> >> > > > > > spend several minutes on JIRA and GitHub.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > As far as documentation - what you describe is normal review
> >> > process,
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > when
> >> > > > > > reviewer might want to ask contributor to fix something.
> >> Checklist
> >> > is a
> >> > > > > > different thing - this is a set of rules which must be
> followed
> >> by
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > anyone.
> >> > > > > > I do not understand how you can define documentation in this
> >> > checklist.
> >> > > > > > Same problem with logging - what is "enough"?
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Eduard Shangareev <
> >> > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Igniters,
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > I don't understand why you are so against refactoring.
> >> > > > > > > Code already smells like hell. Methods 200+ line is normal.
> >> > Exchange
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > future
> >> > > > > > > is asking to be separated on several one. Transaction code
> >> could
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > understand
> >> > > > > > > few people.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > If we separate refactoring from development it would mean
> that
> >> > no one
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > will
> >> > > > > > > do it.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > 2) Documentation.
> >> > > > > > > Everything which was asked by reviewers to clarify idea
> >> should be
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > reflected
> >> > > > > > > in the code.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > 3) Logging.
> >> > > > > > > Logging should be enough to troubleshoot the problem if
> >> someone
> >> > comes
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > user-list with an issue in the code.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 7:06 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <
> >> > > >
> >> > > > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> >> > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > +1 to idea of checklist.
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > +1 to refactoring and documenting code related to ticket
> in
> >> > +/-20
> >> > > >
> >> > > > LOC
> >> > > > > > at
> >> > > > > > > > least.
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > If we start to do it as part of our regular contribution,
> >> code
> >> > will
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > be
> >> > > > > > > > better, it would became common practice and part of Apache
> >> > Ignite
> >> > > > > > > > development culure.
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > If we will hope we will have free time to submit separate
> >> patch
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > someday
> >> > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > have patience to complete patch-submission process, code
> >> will
> >> > > >
> >> > > > remain
> >> > > > > > > > undocumented and poor-readable.
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > Sincerely,
> >> > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > пт, 20 апр. 2018 г. в 18:56, Александр Меньшиков <
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > sharplermc@gmail.com
> >> > > > > > > :
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > 4) Metrics.
> >> > > > > > > > > partially +1
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > It makes sense to have some minimal code coverage for
> new
> >> > code in
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > PR.
> >> > > > > > > > IMHO.
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > Also, we can limit the cyclomatic complexity of the new
> >> code
> >> > in
> >> > > >
> >> > > > PR
> >> > > > > > too.
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > 6) Refactoring
> >> > > > > > > > > -1
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > I understand why people want to refactor old code.
> >> > > > > > > > > But I think refactoring should be always a separate
> task.
> >> > > > > > > > > And it's better to remove all refactoring from PR, if
> it's
> >> > not
> >> > > >
> >> > > > the
> >> > > > > > > sense
> >> > > > > > > > of
> >> > > > > > > > > the issue.
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 16:54 GMT+03:00 Andrey Kuznetsov <
> >> > stkuzma@gmail.com>:
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > What about adding the following item to the checklist:
> >> > when the
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > change
> >> > > > > > > > > adds
> >> > > > > > > > > > new functionality, then unit tests should also be
> >> > provided, if
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > it's
> >> > > > > > > > > > technically possible?
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > As for refactorings, in fact they are strongly
> >> discouraged
> >> > > >
> >> > > > today
> >> > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > > > some
> >> > > > > > > > > > unclear reason. Let's permit to make refactorings in
> the
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > checklist
> >> > > > > > > > being
> >> > > > > > > > > > discussed. (Of cource, refactoring should relate to
> >> problem
> >> > > >
> >> > > > being
> >> > > > > > > > > solved.)
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 16:16 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <
> >> > > >
> >> > > > vozerov@gridgain.com
> >> > > > > > :
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ed,
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately some of these points are not good
> >> > candidates
> >> > > >
> >> > > > for
> >> > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > checklist because of these:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > - It must be clear and disallow *multiple
> >> > interpretations*
> >> > > > > > > > > > > - It must be *lightweight*, otherwise Ignite
> >> development
> >> > > >
> >> > > > would
> >> > > > > > > > become a
> >> > > > > > > > > > > nightmare
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > We cannot have "nice to have" points here. Checklist
> >> > should
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > answer
> >> > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > question "is ticket eligible to be merged?"
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Code style.
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > +1
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  2) Documentation
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > -1, it is impossible to define what is
> >> > "well-documented". A
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > piece
> >> > > > > > > of
> >> > > > > > > > > code
> >> > > > > > > > > > > could be obvious for one contributor, and
> non-obvious
> >> for
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > another.
> >> > > > > > > In
> >> > > > > > > > > any
> >> > > > > > > > > > > case this is not a blocker for merge. Instead,
> during
> >> > review
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > one
> >> > > > > > > can
> >> > > > > > > > > ask
> >> > > > > > > > > > > implementer to add more docs, but it cannot be
> forced.
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  3) Logging
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > -1, same problem - what is "enough logging?". Enough
> >> for
> >> > > >
> >> > > > whom?
> >> > > > > > How
> >> > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > > > understand whether it is enough or not?
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  4) Metrics
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > -1, no clear boundaries, and decision on whether
> >> metrics
> >> > are
> >> > > >
> >> > > > to
> >> > > > > > be
> >> > > > > > > > > added
> >> > > > > > > > > > or
> >> > > > > > > > > > > not should be performed during design phase. As
> >> before,
> >> > it is
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > perfectly
> >> > > > > > > > > > > valid to ask contributor to add metrics with clear
> >> > > >
> >> > > > explanation
> >> > > > > > why,
> >> > > > > > > > but
> >> > > > > > > > > > > this is not part of the checklist.
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5) TC status
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > +1, already mentioned
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  6) Refactoring
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > Strong -1. OOP is a slippery slope, there are no
> good
> >> > and bad
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > receipts
> >> > > > > > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > > > > > > all cases, hence it cannot be used in a checklist.
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > We can borrow useful rules from p.2, p.3 and p.4 if
> >> you
> >> > > >
> >> > > > provide
> >> > > > > > > clear
> >> > > > > > > > > > > definitions on how to measure them.
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > Vladimir.
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Eduard Shangareev <
> >> > > > > > > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Also, I want to add some technical requirement.
> >> Let's
> >> > > >
> >> > > > discuss
> >> > > > > > > them.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Code style.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > The code needs to be formatted according to coding
> >> > > >
> >> > > > guidelines
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Coding+Guidelines
> >> > > > > > > > > > > .
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > The
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > code must not contain TODOs without a ticket
> >> reference.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > It is highly recommended to make major formatting
> >> > changes
> >> > > >
> >> > > > in
> >> > > > > > > > existing
> >> > > > > > > > > > > code
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > as a separate commit, to make review process more
> >> > > >
> >> > > > practical.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Documentation.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Added code should be well-documented. Any methods
> >> that
> >> > > >
> >> > > > raise
> >> > > > > > > > > questions
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > regarding their code flow, invariants,
> >> synchronization,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > etc.,
> >> > > > > > > must
> >> > > > > > > > be
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > documented with comprehensive javadoc. Any
> reviewer
> >> can
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > request
> >> > > > > > > > that
> >> > > > > > > > > a
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > particular added method be documented. Also, it
> is a
> >> > good
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > practice
> >> > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > document old code in a 10-20 lines region around
> >> > changed
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > code.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > 3) Logging.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Make sure that there are enough logging added in
> >> every
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > category
> >> > > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > possible diagnostic in field. Check that logging
> >> > messages
> >> > > >
> >> > > > are
> >> > > > > > > > > properly
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > spelled.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > 4) Metrics.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Are there any metrics that need to be exposed to
> >> user?
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > 5) TC status.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Recheck that there are no new failing tests
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > 6) Refactoring.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > The code should be better than before:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - extract method from big one;
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - do anything else to make code clearer (don't
> >> > forget
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > about
> >> > > > > > > some
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >    OOP-practise, replace if-else hell with
> >> inheritance
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - split refactoring (renaming, code format)
> from
> >> > actual
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > changes
> >> > > > > > > > by
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >    separate commit
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:23 PM, Eduard
> Shangareev <
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, guys.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that we should update maintainers list
> >> > before
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > adding
> >> > > > > > > > this
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > review
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > requirement.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > There should not be the situation when there is
> >> only
> >> > one
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > contributor
> >> > > > > > > > > > > who
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > is responsible for a component.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > We already have issues with review speed and
> >> response
> >> > > >
> >> > > > time.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 2:17 PM, Anton
> Vinogradov
> >> <
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > av@apache.org
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vova,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Everything you described sound good to me.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to propose to create special page at
> AI
> >> > Wiki
> >> > > >
> >> > > > and
> >> > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > > describe
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > checklist.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case we'll find something should be
> >> > changed/improved
> >> > > >
> >> > > > it
> >> > > > > > > will
> >> > > > > > > > be
> >> > > > > > > > > > > easy
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > update the page.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 0:53 GMT+03:00 Nikolay Izhikov <
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > nizhikov@apache.org
> >> > > > > > > > > :
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Vladimir.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for seting up this discussion.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As we discussed, I think an important part
> of
> >> > this
> >> > > >
> >> > > > check
> >> > > > > > > list
> >> > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > compatibility rules.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * What should be backward compatible?
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * How should we maintain it?
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) If ticket changes public API or
> existing
> >> > > >
> >> > > > behavior,
> >> > > > > at
> >> > > > > > > > least
> >> > > > > > > > > > two
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commiters should approve the changes
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can learn from other open source project
> >> > > >
> >> > > > experience.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Apache Kafka [1], for example, requires
> >> KIP(kafka
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > improvement
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > proposal)
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for *every* major change.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Major change definition includes public API.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/
> >> > > >
> >> > > > confluence/display/KAFKA/
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kafka+Improvement+Proposals
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > В Чт, 19/04/2018 в 23:00 +0300, Vladimir
> >> Ozerov
> >> > пишет:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's glad to see our community becomes
> >> larger
> >> > every
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > day.
> >> > > > > > > But
> >> > > > > > > > > as
> >> > > > > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > grows
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes more and more difficult to manage
> >> > review and
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > merge
> >> > > > > > > > > > > processes
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > keep quality of our decisions at the
> proper
> >> > level.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > More
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > contributors,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commits, more components interlinked with
> >> each
> >> > other
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > in
> >> > > > > > > > subtle
> >> > > > > > > > > > > ways.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to propose to setup a formal
> >> > review
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > checklist.
> >> > > > > > > > > This
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > would
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be a
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > set of actions every reviewer needs to
> check
> >> > before
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > approving
> >> > > > > > > > > > > merge
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of a
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > certain feature. Passing the checklist
> >> would be
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > *necessary
> >> > > > > > > > but
> >> > > > > > > > > > not
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sufficient* phase before commit could be
> >> added
> >> > to
> >> > > >
> >> > > > the
> >> > > > > > main
> >> > > > > > > > > > branch.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > The
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > checklist would help us to detect a lot of
> >> > common
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > problems
> >> > > > > > > > > such
> >> > > > > > > > > > a
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > broken
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests or bad UX earlier, and would help
> >> > contributors
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > lead
> >> > > > > > > > > their
> >> > > > > > > > > > > pull
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > requests to merge.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hallmarks of a good checklist:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - It must be followed be everyone without
> >> > exceptions
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - It must be clear and disallow multiple
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > interpretations
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - It must be lightweight, otherwise Ignite
> >> > > >
> >> > > > development
> >> > > > > > > would
> >> > > > > > > > > > > become
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > a
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nightmare
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - It must be non-blocking, i.e.
> >> inacessibility
> >> > of a
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > single
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > contributor
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should not block ticket progress forever.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please let me know if you think the idea
> >> makes
> >> > > >
> >> > > > sense.
> >> > > > > If
> >> > > > > > > we
> >> > > > > > > > > > agree
> >> > > > > > > > > > > on
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > let's start defining action items for the
> >> > checklist.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > My
> >> > > > > > 2
> >> > > > > > > > > cents:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) All unit tests pass on TC without new
> >> > failures
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) If ticket targets specific component,
> it
> >> > should
> >> > > >
> >> > > > be
> >> > > > > > > > reviewed
> >> > > > > > > > > > by
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > component's maintainer*
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) If ticket changes public API or
> existing
> >> > > >
> >> > > > behavior,
> >> > > > > at
> >> > > > > > > > least
> >> > > > > > > > > > two
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commiters should approve the changes **
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts?
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vladimir.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * TBD: Review component list and define
> >> > maintainers;
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > define
> >> > > > > > > > > what
> >> > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > do if
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > maintainer is unavailable
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ** TBD: Define what is "public API"
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > --
> >> > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> >> > > > > > > > > >   Andrey Kuznetsov.
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > --
> >> > > > Best regards,
> >> > > >   Andrey Kuznetsov.
> >> > > >
> >>
> >
> >
>

Re: Ticket review checklist

[Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>]

Dima,

It will be on WIKI once community is in agreement on it's content.

On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 11:09 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>
wrote:

> Is this list on the Wiki?
>
> On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 7:26 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Igniters,
> >
> > This is the checklist I have at the moment. Please let me know if you
> have
> > any comments on existing items, or want to add or remove anything. It
> looks
> > like we may have not only strict rules, but *nice to have* points here as
> > well with help of *MUST*, *SHOULD* and *MAY* words as per RFC2119 [1]. So
> > please feel free to suggest optional items as well.
> >
> > 1) API
> > 1.1) API compatibility *MUST* be maintained between minor releases. Do
> not
> > remove existing methods or change their signatures, deprecate them
> instead
> > 1.2) Default behaviour "SHOULD NOT* be changed between minor releases,
> > unless absolutely needed. If change is made, it *MUST* be described in
> > "Migration Guide"
> > 1.3) New operation *MUST* be well-documented in code (javadoc,
> dotnetdoc):
> > documentation must contain method's purpose, description of parameters
> and
> > how their values affect the outcome, description of return value and it's
> > default, behavior in negative cases, interaction with other operations
> and
> > components
> > 1.4) API parity between Java and .NET platforms *SHOULD* be maintained
> when
> > operation makes sense on both platforms. If method cannot be implemented
> in
> > a platform immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be created and linked to
> > current ticket
> > 1.5) API parity between thin clients (Java, .NET) *SHOULD* be maintained
> > when operation makes sense on several clients. If method cannot be
> > implemented in a client immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be created
> and
> > linked to current ticket
> > 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user *MUST* have explanation how to
> > resolve, workaround or debug an error
> >
> > 2) Compatibility
> > 2.1) Persistence backward compatibility *MUST* be maintained between
> minor
> > releases. It should be possible to start newer version on data files
> > created by the previous version
> > 2.2) Thin client forward and backward compatibility *SHOULD* be
> maintained
> > between two consecutive minor releases. If compatibility cannot be
> > maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
> > 2.3) JDBC and ODBC forward and backward compatibility *SHOULD* be
> > maintained between two consecutive minor releases. If compatibility
> cannot
> > be maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
> >
> > 3) Tests
> > 3.1) New functionality *MUST* be covered with unit tests for both
> positive
> > and negative use cases
> > 3.2) All test suites *MUST* be run before merge to master..There *MUST*
> be
> > no new test failures
> >
> > 4) Code style *MUST* be followed as per Ignite's Coding Guidelines
> >
> > Vladimir.
> >
> > [1] https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
> >
> > On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Dmitry,
> > >
> > > Yes, I'll do that in the nearest days.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <dp...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Igniters, the idea was related to small refactorings co-located with
> > main
> > >> change.
> > >>
> > >> Main change itself indicates that existing code did not meet the
> > criteria
> > >> of practice. Approving of standalone refactorings instead contradicts
> > with
> > >> principle don't touch if it works. So I still like idea of co-located
> > >> changes improving code, javadocs, style, etc.
> > >>
> > >> But let's not argue about this point now, let's summarize the
> undisputed
> > >> points and add it to the wiki. Vladimir, would you please do it?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ср, 25 апр. 2018 г. в 16:42, Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>:
> > >>
> > >> > Igniters,
> > >> >
> > >> > I agree with Vova.
> > >> >
> > >> > Don't fix if it works!
> > >> >
> > >> > If you 100% sure then it a useful addition to the product - just
> make
> > a
> > >> > separate ticket.
> > >> >
> > >> > В Ср, 25/04/2018 в 11:44 +0300, Vladimir Ozerov пишет:
> > >> > > Guys,
> > >> > >
> > >> > > The problem with in-place refactorings is that you increase
> affected
> > >> > scope.
> > >> > > It is not uncommon to break compatibility or public contracts with
> > >> even
> > >> > > minor things. E.g. recently we decided drop org.jsr166 package in
> > >> favor
> > >> > of
> > >> > > Java 8 classes. Innocent change. Result - broken storage. Another
> > >> problem
> > >> > > is conflicts. It is not uncommon to have long-lived branches which
> > we
> > >> > need
> > >> > > to merge with master over and over again. And a lot of
> refactorings
> > >> cause
> > >> > > conflicts. It is much easier to resolve them if you know that
> logic
> > >> was
> > >> > not
> > >> > > affected as opposed to cases when you need to resolve both renames
> > and
> > >> > > method extractions along with business-logic changes.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > I'd like to repeat - if you have a time for refactoring then you
> > >> > definitely
> > >> > > have a time to extract these changes to separate PR and submit a
> > >> separate
> > >> > > ticket. I am quite understand what "low priority" do you mean if
> you
> > >> do
> > >> > > refactorings on your own.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 10:52 PM, Andrey Kuznetsov <
> > stkuzma@gmail.com
> > >> >
> > >> > > wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > +1.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Once again, I beg for "small refactoring permission" in a
> > checklist.
> > >> > As of
> > >> > > > today, separate tickets for small refactorings has lowest
> > priority,
> > >> > since
> > >> > > > they neither fix any flaw nor add new functionality. Also, the
> > >> > attempts to
> > >> > > > make issue-related code safer / cleaner / more readable in
> "real"
> > >> pull
> > >> > > > requests are typically rejected, since they contradict our
> current
> > >> > > > guidelines.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > I understand this will require a bit more effort from
> > >> > committer/maintainer,
> > >> > > > but otherwise we will get constantly degrading code quality.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > 2018-04-24 18:52 GMT+03:00 Eduard Shangareev <
> > >> > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com
> > >> > > > > :
> > >> > > > > Vladimir,
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > I am not talking about massive/sophisticated refactoring. But
> I
> > >> > believe
> > >> > > > > that ask to extract some methods should be OK to do without an
> > >> extra
> > >> > > > > ticket.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > A checklist shouldn't be necessarily a set of certain rules
> but
> > >> also
> > >> > it
> > >> > > > > could include suggestion and reminders.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 6:39 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > >> > vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > >> > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Ed,
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Refactoring is a separate task. If you would like to rework
> > >> > exchange
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > future
> > >> > > > > > - please do this in a ticket "Refactor exchange task",
> nobody
> > >> would
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > against
> > >> > > > > > this. This is just a matter of creating separate ticket and
> > >> > separate
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > PR.
> > >> > > > > If
> > >> > > > > > one have a time for refactoring, it should not be a problem
> > for
> > >> > him to
> > >> > > > > > spend several minutes on JIRA and GitHub.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > As far as documentation - what you describe is normal review
> > >> > process,
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > when
> > >> > > > > > reviewer might want to ask contributor to fix something.
> > >> Checklist
> > >> > is a
> > >> > > > > > different thing - this is a set of rules which must be
> > followed
> > >> by
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > anyone.
> > >> > > > > > I do not understand how you can define documentation in this
> > >> > checklist.
> > >> > > > > > Same problem with logging - what is "enough"?
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Eduard Shangareev <
> > >> > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > Igniters,
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > I don't understand why you are so against refactoring.
> > >> > > > > > > Code already smells like hell. Methods 200+ line is
> normal.
> > >> > Exchange
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > future
> > >> > > > > > > is asking to be separated on several one. Transaction code
> > >> could
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > understand
> > >> > > > > > > few people.
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > If we separate refactoring from development it would mean
> > that
> > >> > no one
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > will
> > >> > > > > > > do it.
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > 2) Documentation.
> > >> > > > > > > Everything which was asked by reviewers to clarify idea
> > >> should be
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > reflected
> > >> > > > > > > in the code.
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > 3) Logging.
> > >> > > > > > > Logging should be enough to troubleshoot the problem if
> > >> someone
> > >> > comes
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > > user-list with an issue in the code.
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 7:06 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> > >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > +1 to idea of checklist.
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > +1 to refactoring and documenting code related to ticket
> > in
> > >> > +/-20
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > LOC
> > >> > > > > > at
> > >> > > > > > > > least.
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > If we start to do it as part of our regular
> contribution,
> > >> code
> > >> > will
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > be
> > >> > > > > > > > better, it would became common practice and part of
> Apache
> > >> > Ignite
> > >> > > > > > > > development culure.
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > If we will hope we will have free time to submit
> separate
> > >> patch
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > someday
> > >> > > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > > > have patience to complete patch-submission process, code
> > >> will
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > remain
> > >> > > > > > > > undocumented and poor-readable.
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > Sincerely,
> > >> > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > пт, 20 апр. 2018 г. в 18:56, Александр Меньшиков <
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > sharplermc@gmail.com
> > >> > > > > > > :
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > 4) Metrics.
> > >> > > > > > > > > partially +1
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > It makes sense to have some minimal code coverage for
> > new
> > >> > code in
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > PR.
> > >> > > > > > > > IMHO.
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > Also, we can limit the cyclomatic complexity of the
> new
> > >> code
> > >> > in
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > PR
> > >> > > > > > too.
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > 6) Refactoring
> > >> > > > > > > > > -1
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > I understand why people want to refactor old code.
> > >> > > > > > > > > But I think refactoring should be always a separate
> > task.
> > >> > > > > > > > > And it's better to remove all refactoring from PR, if
> > it's
> > >> > not
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > the
> > >> > > > > > > sense
> > >> > > > > > > > of
> > >> > > > > > > > > the issue.
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 16:54 GMT+03:00 Andrey Kuznetsov <
> > >> > stkuzma@gmail.com>:
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > What about adding the following item to the
> checklist:
> > >> > when the
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > change
> > >> > > > > > > > > adds
> > >> > > > > > > > > > new functionality, then unit tests should also be
> > >> > provided, if
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > it's
> > >> > > > > > > > > > technically possible?
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > As for refactorings, in fact they are strongly
> > >> discouraged
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > today
> > >> > > > > > for
> > >> > > > > > > > some
> > >> > > > > > > > > > unclear reason. Let's permit to make refactorings in
> > the
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > checklist
> > >> > > > > > > > being
> > >> > > > > > > > > > discussed. (Of cource, refactoring should relate to
> > >> problem
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > being
> > >> > > > > > > > > solved.)
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 16:16 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > vozerov@gridgain.com
> > >> > > > > > :
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ed,
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately some of these points are not good
> > >> > candidates
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > for
> > >> > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > checklist because of these:
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > - It must be clear and disallow *multiple
> > >> > interpretations*
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > - It must be *lightweight*, otherwise Ignite
> > >> development
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > would
> > >> > > > > > > > become a
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > nightmare
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > We cannot have "nice to have" points here.
> Checklist
> > >> > should
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > answer
> > >> > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > question "is ticket eligible to be merged?"
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Code style.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > +1
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  2) Documentation
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > -1, it is impossible to define what is
> > >> > "well-documented". A
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > piece
> > >> > > > > > > of
> > >> > > > > > > > > code
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > could be obvious for one contributor, and
> > non-obvious
> > >> for
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > another.
> > >> > > > > > > In
> > >> > > > > > > > > any
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > case this is not a blocker for merge. Instead,
> > during
> > >> > review
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > one
> > >> > > > > > > can
> > >> > > > > > > > > ask
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > implementer to add more docs, but it cannot be
> > forced.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  3) Logging
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > -1, same problem - what is "enough logging?".
> Enough
> > >> for
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > whom?
> > >> > > > > > How
> > >> > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > understand whether it is enough or not?
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  4) Metrics
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > -1, no clear boundaries, and decision on whether
> > >> metrics
> > >> > are
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > to
> > >> > > > > > be
> > >> > > > > > > > > added
> > >> > > > > > > > > > or
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > not should be performed during design phase. As
> > >> before,
> > >> > it is
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > perfectly
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > valid to ask contributor to add metrics with clear
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > explanation
> > >> > > > > > why,
> > >> > > > > > > > but
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > this is not part of the checklist.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5) TC status
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > +1, already mentioned
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  6) Refactoring
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > Strong -1. OOP is a slippery slope, there are no
> > good
> > >> > and bad
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > receipts
> > >> > > > > > > > > > for
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > all cases, hence it cannot be used in a checklist.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > We can borrow useful rules from p.2, p.3 and p.4
> if
> > >> you
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > provide
> > >> > > > > > > clear
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > definitions on how to measure them.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > Vladimir.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Eduard
> Shangareev <
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Also, I want to add some technical requirement.
> > >> Let's
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > discuss
> > >> > > > > > > them.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Code style.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The code needs to be formatted according to
> coding
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > guidelines
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > Coding+Guidelines
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > .
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > code must not contain TODOs without a ticket
> > >> reference.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > It is highly recommended to make major
> formatting
> > >> > changes
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > in
> > >> > > > > > > > existing
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > code
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > as a separate commit, to make review process
> more
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > practical.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Documentation.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Added code should be well-documented. Any
> methods
> > >> that
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > raise
> > >> > > > > > > > > questions
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > regarding their code flow, invariants,
> > >> synchronization,
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > etc.,
> > >> > > > > > > must
> > >> > > > > > > > be
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > documented with comprehensive javadoc. Any
> > reviewer
> > >> can
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > request
> > >> > > > > > > > that
> > >> > > > > > > > > a
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > particular added method be documented. Also, it
> > is a
> > >> > good
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > practice
> > >> > > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > document old code in a 10-20 lines region around
> > >> > changed
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > code.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 3) Logging.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Make sure that there are enough logging added in
> > >> every
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > category
> > >> > > > > > > for
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > possible diagnostic in field. Check that logging
> > >> > messages
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > are
> > >> > > > > > > > > properly
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > spelled.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 4) Metrics.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Are there any metrics that need to be exposed to
> > >> user?
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 5) TC status.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Recheck that there are no new failing tests
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 6) Refactoring.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The code should be better than before:
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - extract method from big one;
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - do anything else to make code clearer
> (don't
> > >> > forget
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > about
> > >> > > > > > > some
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    OOP-practise, replace if-else hell with
> > >> inheritance
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - split refactoring (renaming, code format)
> > from
> > >> > actual
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > changes
> > >> > > > > > > > by
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    separate commit
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:23 PM, Eduard
> > Shangareev <
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, guys.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that we should update maintainers
> list
> > >> > before
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > adding
> > >> > > > > > > > this
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > review
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > requirement.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > There should not be the situation when there
> is
> > >> only
> > >> > one
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > contributor
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > who
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > is responsible for a component.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > We already have issues with review speed and
> > >> response
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > time.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 2:17 PM, Anton
> > Vinogradov
> > >> <
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vova,
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Everything you described sound good to me.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to propose to create special page
> at
> > AI
> > >> > Wiki
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > and
> > >> > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > > > > > describe
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > checklist.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case we'll find something should be
> > >> > changed/improved
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > it
> > >> > > > > > > will
> > >> > > > > > > > be
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > update the page.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 0:53 GMT+03:00 Nikolay Izhikov <
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > nizhikov@apache.org
> > >> > > > > > > > > :
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Vladimir.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for seting up this discussion.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As we discussed, I think an important part
> > of
> > >> > this
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > check
> > >> > > > > > > list
> > >> > > > > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > compatibility rules.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * What should be backward compatible?
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * How should we maintain it?
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) If ticket changes public API or
> > existing
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > behavior,
> > >> > > > > at
> > >> > > > > > > > least
> > >> > > > > > > > > > two
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commiters should approve the changes
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can learn from other open source
> project
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > experience.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Apache Kafka [1], for example, requires
> > >> KIP(kafka
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > improvement
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > proposal)
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for *every* major change.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Major change definition includes public
> API.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > confluence/display/KAFKA/
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kafka+Improvement+Proposals
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > В Чт, 19/04/2018 в 23:00 +0300, Vladimir
> > >> Ozerov
> > >> > пишет:
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's glad to see our community becomes
> > >> larger
> > >> > every
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > day.
> > >> > > > > > > But
> > >> > > > > > > > > as
> > >> > > > > > > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > grows
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes more and more difficult to
> manage
> > >> > review and
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > merge
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > processes
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > keep quality of our decisions at the
> > proper
> > >> > level.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > More
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > contributors,
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commits, more components interlinked
> with
> > >> each
> > >> > other
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > in
> > >> > > > > > > > subtle
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > ways.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to propose to setup a
> formal
> > >> > review
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > checklist.
> > >> > > > > > > > > This
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be a
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > set of actions every reviewer needs to
> > check
> > >> > before
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > approving
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > merge
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of a
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > certain feature. Passing the checklist
> > >> would be
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > *necessary
> > >> > > > > > > > but
> > >> > > > > > > > > > not
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sufficient* phase before commit could be
> > >> added
> > >> > to
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > the
> > >> > > > > > main
> > >> > > > > > > > > > branch.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > checklist would help us to detect a lot
> of
> > >> > common
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > problems
> > >> > > > > > > > > such
> > >> > > > > > > > > > a
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > broken
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests or bad UX earlier, and would help
> > >> > contributors
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > lead
> > >> > > > > > > > > their
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > pull
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > requests to merge.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hallmarks of a good checklist:
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - It must be followed be everyone
> without
> > >> > exceptions
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - It must be clear and disallow multiple
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > interpretations
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - It must be lightweight, otherwise
> Ignite
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > development
> > >> > > > > > > would
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > become
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nightmare
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - It must be non-blocking, i.e.
> > >> inacessibility
> > >> > of a
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > single
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > contributor
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should not block ticket progress
> forever.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please let me know if you think the idea
> > >> makes
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > sense.
> > >> > > > > If
> > >> > > > > > > we
> > >> > > > > > > > > > agree
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > on
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it,
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > let's start defining action items for
> the
> > >> > checklist.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > My
> > >> > > > > > 2
> > >> > > > > > > > > cents:
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) All unit tests pass on TC without new
> > >> > failures
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) If ticket targets specific component,
> > it
> > >> > should
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > be
> > >> > > > > > > > reviewed
> > >> > > > > > > > > > by
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > component's maintainer*
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) If ticket changes public API or
> > existing
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > behavior,
> > >> > > > > at
> > >> > > > > > > > least
> > >> > > > > > > > > > two
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commiters should approve the changes **
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts?
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vladimir.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * TBD: Review component list and define
> > >> > maintainers;
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > define
> > >> > > > > > > > > what
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > do if
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > maintainer is unavailable
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ** TBD: Define what is "public API"
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > --
> > >> > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > >> > > > > > > > > >   Andrey Kuznetsov.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > --
> > >> > > > Best regards,
> > >> > > >   Andrey Kuznetsov.
> > >> > > >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Ticket review checklist

[Dmitry Pavlov <dp...@gmail.com>]

Correct message should be added to original exception thrown at cache
update.

Re-thrown exception case is not counter-example for general approach.


чт, 10 мая 2018 г. в 16:24, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:

>  >> U.error(log, "Unexpected exception during cache update", e);
> >> I mean, we genuinely don't know what happened here.
> Fully agree with Ilya.
> In some cases it's impossible to explain the reason.
> All we can is just to log the error.
>
> >> Error text `Unexpected exception during cache update` is brilliant
> example
> >> how product should not behave.
> Dmitry, could you please provide correct message for this case?
>
>
> чт, 10 мая 2018 г. в 16:23, Ilya Kasnacheev <il...@gmail.com>:
>
> > Dmitry,
> >
> > can you please perform an excercise of looking that piece of code up
> >
> >
> (org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.distributed.dht.atomic.GridDhtAtomicCache),
> > telling us how an ideal message should look like in this case?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > --
> > Ilya Kasnacheev
> >
> > 2018-05-10 16:15 GMT+03:00 Dmitry Pavlov <dp...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > Hi Ilya,
> > >
> > > Error text `Unexpected exception during cache update` is brilliant
> > example
> > > how product should not behave.
> > >
> > > So requiring contributors to explain reasons of failure would be good
> > first
> > > step to come to situation that exception text is so clear that user
> will
> > > know what to do. It will defenetely reduce number of messages to user
> > list.
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > >
> > >
> > > чт, 10 мая 2018 г. в 15:50, Ilya Kasnacheev <ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com
> >:
> > >
> > > > I don't think I quite understand how exception explanations should
> > work.
> > > >
> > > > Imagine we have the following exception:
> > > >
> > > > // At least RuntimeException can be thrown by the code above when
> > > > GridCacheContext is cleaned and there is
> > > > // an attempt to use cleaned resources.
> > > > U.error(log, "Unexpected exception during cache update", e);
> > > >
> > > > I mean, we genuinely don't know what happened here.
> > > >
> > > > Under new rules, what kind of "workaround" would that exception
> > suggest?
> > > > "Try turning it off and then back on"?
> > > > What explanation how to resolve this exception can we offer? "Please
> > > write
> > > > to dev@apache.ignite.org or to Apache JIRA, and then wait for a
> > release
> > > > with fix?"
> > > >
> > > > I'm really confused how we can implement 1.6 and 1.7 when dealing
> with
> > > > messy real-world code.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Ilya Kasnacheev
> > > >
> > > > 2018-05-10 11:39 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>:
> > > >
> > > > > Andrey, Anton, Alex
> > > > >
> > > > > Agree, *SHOULD* is more appropriate here.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please see latest version below. Does anyone want to add or change
> > > > > something? Let's wait for several days for more feedback and then
> > > publish
> > > > > and announce this list. Note that it would not be carved in stone
> and
> > > we
> > > > > will be able to change it at any time if needed.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) API
> > > > > 1.1) API compatibility *MUST* be maintained between minor releases.
> > Do
> > > > not
> > > > > remove existing methods or change their signatures, deprecate them
> > > > instead
> > > > > 1.2) Default behaviour "SHOULD NOT* be changed between minor
> > releases,
> > > > > unless absolutely needed. If change is made, it *MUST* be described
> > in
> > > > > "Migration Guide"
> > > > > 1.3) New operation *MUST* be well-documented in code (javadoc,
> > > > dotnetdoc):
> > > > > documentation must contain method's purpose, description of
> > parameters
> > > > and
> > > > > how their values affect the outcome, description of return value
> and
> > > it's
> > > > > default, behavior in negative cases, interaction with other
> > operations
> > > > and
> > > > > components
> > > > > 1.4) API parity between Java and .NET platforms *SHOULD* be
> > maintained
> > > > when
> > > > > operation makes sense on both platforms. If method cannot be
> > > implemented
> > > > in
> > > > > a platform immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be created and
> linked
> > to
> > > > > current ticket
> > > > > 1.5) API parity between thin clients (Java, .NET) *SHOULD* be
> > > maintained
> > > > > when operation makes sense on several clients. If method cannot be
> > > > > implemented in a client immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be
> > created
> > > > and
> > > > > linked to current ticket
> > > > > 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user **SHOULD** have explanation
> how
> > to
> > > > > resolve, workaround or debug an error
> > > > >
> > > > > 2) Compatibility
> > > > > 2.1) Persistence backward compatibility *MUST* be maintained
> between
> > > > minor
> > > > > releases. It should be possible to start newer version on data
> files
> > > > > created by the previous version
> > > > > 2.2) Thin client forward and backward compatibility *SHOULD* be
> > > > maintained
> > > > > between two consecutive minor releases. If compatibility cannot be
> > > > > maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
> > > > > 2.3) JDBC and ODBC forward and backward compatibility *SHOULD* be
> > > > > maintained between two consecutive minor releases. If compatibility
> > > > cannot
> > > > > be maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
> > > > >
> > > > > 3) Tests
> > > > > 3.1) New functionality *MUST* be covered with unit tests for both
> > > > positive
> > > > > and negative use cases
> > > > > 3.2) All test suites *MUST* be run before merge to master..There
> > *MUST*
> > > > be
> > > > > no new test failures
> > > > >
> > > > > 4) Code style *MUST* be followed as per Ignite's Coding Guidelines
> > > > >
> > > > > Vladimir.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 1:05 PM, Andrey Kuznetsov <
> stkuzma@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Anton,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I agree, *MUST* for exception reasons and *SHOULD* for ways of
> > > > resolution
> > > > > > sound clearer.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2018-05-08 12:56 GMT+03:00 Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > How about
> > > > > > > 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user *MUST* have explanation of
> > > > > > workaround
> > > > > > > and contain original error.
> > > > > > > All exceptions thrown to a user *SHOULD* have explanation how
> to
> > > > > resolve
> > > > > > if
> > > > > > > possible.
> > > > > > > ?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > вт, 8 мая 2018 г. в 12:26, Andrey Kuznetsov <stkuzma@gmail.com
> >:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Vladimir, checklist looks pleasant enough for me.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'd like to suggest one minor change. In 1.6 *MUST* seems to
> be
> > > too
> > > > > > > strict,
> > > > > > > > *SHOULD* would be enough. It can be frustrating for API user
> > if I
> > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > how to fix NPEs in a trivial way, for example.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2018-05-08 11:34 GMT+03:00 Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Alex,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It is not sounds like that, obviously.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Tests should cover all negative and positive cases.
> > > > > > > > > You should add enough tests to cover all cases.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Sometimes one test can cover more than one case, so two
> tests
> > > > *CAN*
> > > > > > > > > partially check same things.
> > > > > > > > > In case some cases already covered you should not create
> > > > > duplicates.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > вт, 8 мая 2018 г. в 10:19, Александр Меньшиков <
> > > > > sharplermc@gmail.com
> > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Vladimir, the 3.1 is a bit unclear for me. Which code
> > > coverage
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > acceptable? Now it sounds like two tests are enough (one
> > for
> > > > > > positive
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > one for negative cases).
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 2018-05-07 23:09 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > > > > > dsetrakyan@apache.org
> > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Is this list on the Wiki?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 7:26 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > > > > > > vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > This is the checklist I have at the moment. Please
> let
> > me
> > > > > know
> > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > any comments on existing items, or want to add or
> > remove
> > > > > > > anything.
> > > > > > > > It
> > > > > > > > > > > looks
> > > > > > > > > > > > like we may have not only strict rules, but *nice to
> > > have*
> > > > > > points
> > > > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > well with help of *MUST*, *SHOULD* and *MAY* words as
> > per
> > > > > > RFC2119
> > > > > > > > > [1].
> > > > > > > > > > So
> > > > > > > > > > > > please feel free to suggest optional items as well.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 1) API
> > > > > > > > > > > > 1.1) API compatibility *MUST* be maintained between
> > minor
> > > > > > > releases.
> > > > > > > > > Do
> > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > remove existing methods or change their signatures,
> > > > deprecate
> > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > > instead
> > > > > > > > > > > > 1.2) Default behaviour "SHOULD NOT* be changed
> between
> > > > minor
> > > > > > > > > releases,
> > > > > > > > > > > > unless absolutely needed. If change is made, it
> *MUST*
> > be
> > > > > > > described
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > "Migration Guide"
> > > > > > > > > > > > 1.3) New operation *MUST* be well-documented in code
> > > > > (javadoc,
> > > > > > > > > > > dotnetdoc):
> > > > > > > > > > > > documentation must contain method's purpose,
> > description
> > > of
> > > > > > > > > parameters
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > how their values affect the outcome, description of
> > > return
> > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > default, behavior in negative cases, interaction with
> > > other
> > > > > > > > > operations
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > components
> > > > > > > > > > > > 1.4) API parity between Java and .NET platforms
> > *SHOULD*
> > > be
> > > > > > > > > maintained
> > > > > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > > > operation makes sense on both platforms. If method
> > cannot
> > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > implemented
> > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > a platform immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be
> > created
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > linked
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > current ticket
> > > > > > > > > > > > 1.5) API parity between thin clients (Java, .NET)
> > > *SHOULD*
> > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > maintained
> > > > > > > > > > > > when operation makes sense on several clients. If
> > method
> > > > > cannot
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > implemented in a client immediately, new JIRA ticket
> > > *MUST*
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > created
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > linked to current ticket
> > > > > > > > > > > > 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user *MUST* have
> > > > explanation
> > > > > > how
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > resolve, workaround or debug an error
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Compatibility
> > > > > > > > > > > > 2.1) Persistence backward compatibility *MUST* be
> > > > maintained
> > > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > > > minor
> > > > > > > > > > > > releases. It should be possible to start newer
> version
> > on
> > > > > data
> > > > > > > > files
> > > > > > > > > > > > created by the previous version
> > > > > > > > > > > > 2.2) Thin client forward and backward compatibility
> > > > *SHOULD*
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > maintained
> > > > > > > > > > > > between two consecutive minor releases. If
> > compatibility
> > > > > cannot
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration
> Guide"
> > > > > > > > > > > > 2.3) JDBC and ODBC forward and backward compatibility
> > > > > *SHOULD*
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > maintained between two consecutive minor releases. If
> > > > > > > compatibility
> > > > > > > > > > > cannot
> > > > > > > > > > > > be maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration
> > Guide"
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 3) Tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > 3.1) New functionality *MUST* be covered with unit
> > tests
> > > > for
> > > > > > both
> > > > > > > > > > > positive
> > > > > > > > > > > > and negative use cases
> > > > > > > > > > > > 3.2) All test suites *MUST* be run before merge to
> > > > > > master..There
> > > > > > > > > *MUST*
> > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > no new test failures
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 4) Code style *MUST* be followed as per Ignite's
> Coding
> > > > > > > Guidelines
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Vladimir.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > > > > > > > vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Dmitry,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I'll do that in the nearest days.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Igniters, the idea was related to small
> refactorings
> > > > > > > co-located
> > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > main
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> change.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Main change itself indicates that existing code
> did
> > > not
> > > > > meet
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > criteria
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> of practice. Approving of standalone refactorings
> > > > instead
> > > > > > > > > > contradicts
> > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> principle don't touch if it works. So I still like
> > > idea
> > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > co-located
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> changes improving code, javadocs, style, etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> But let's not argue about this point now, let's
> > > > summarize
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > undisputed
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> points and add it to the wiki. Vladimir, would you
> > > > please
> > > > > do
> > > > > > > it?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> ср, 25 апр. 2018 г. в 16:42, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > > > > nizhikov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > I agree with Vova.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Don't fix if it works!
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > If you 100% sure then it a useful addition to
> the
> > > > > product
> > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > separate ticket.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > В Ср, 25/04/2018 в 11:44 +0300, Vladimir Ozerov
> > > пишет:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Guys,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > The problem with in-place refactorings is that
> > you
> > > > > > > increase
> > > > > > > > > > > affected
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > scope.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > It is not uncommon to break compatibility or
> > > public
> > > > > > > > contracts
> > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> even
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > minor things. E.g. recently we decided drop
> > > > org.jsr166
> > > > > > > > package
> > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> favor
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Java 8 classes. Innocent change. Result -
> broken
> > > > > > storage.
> > > > > > > > > > Another
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> problem
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > is conflicts. It is not uncommon to have
> > > long-lived
> > > > > > > branches
> > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > need
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > to merge with master over and over again. And
> a
> > > lot
> > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > refactorings
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> cause
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > conflicts. It is much easier to resolve them
> if
> > > you
> > > > > know
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > logic
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> was
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > affected as opposed to cases when you need to
> > > > resolve
> > > > > > both
> > > > > > > > > > renames
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > method extractions along with business-logic
> > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > I'd like to repeat - if you have a time for
> > > > > refactoring
> > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > definitely
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > have a time to extract these changes to
> separate
> > > PR
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > submit a
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> separate
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > ticket. I am quite understand what "low
> > priority"
> > > do
> > > > > you
> > > > > > > > mean
> > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> do
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > refactorings on your own.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 10:52 PM, Andrey
> > > Kuznetsov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > stkuzma@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > +1.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Once again, I beg for "small refactoring
> > > > permission"
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > checklist.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > As of
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > today, separate tickets for small
> refactorings
> > > has
> > > > > > > lowest
> > > > > > > > > > > > priority,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > since
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > they neither fix any flaw nor add new
> > > > functionality.
> > > > > > > Also,
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > attempts to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > make issue-related code safer / cleaner /
> more
> > > > > > readable
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > "real"
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> pull
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > requests are typically rejected, since they
> > > > > contradict
> > > > > > > our
> > > > > > > > > > > current
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > guidelines.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > I understand this will require a bit more
> > effort
> > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > committer/maintainer,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > but otherwise we will get constantly
> degrading
> > > > code
> > > > > > > > quality.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > 2018-04-24 18:52 GMT+03:00 Eduard
> Shangareev <
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Vladimir,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > I am not talking about
> massive/sophisticated
> > > > > > > > refactoring.
> > > > > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > believe
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > that ask to extract some methods should be
> > OK
> > > to
> > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> extra
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > ticket.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > A checklist shouldn't be necessarily a set
> > of
> > > > > > certain
> > > > > > > > > rules
> > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> also
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > could include suggestion and reminders.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 6:39 PM, Vladimir
> > > > Ozerov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Ed,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Refactoring is a separate task. If you
> > would
> > > > > like
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > rework
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > exchange
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > future
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > - please do this in a ticket "Refactor
> > > > exchange
> > > > > > > task",
> > > > > > > > > > > nobody
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> would
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > against
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > this. This is just a matter of creating
> > > > separate
> > > > > > > > ticket
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > separate
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > PR.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > one have a time for refactoring, it
> should
> > > not
> > > > > be
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > problem
> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > him to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > spend several minutes on JIRA and
> GitHub.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > As far as documentation - what you
> > describe
> > > is
> > > > > > > normal
> > > > > > > > > > review
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > process,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > reviewer might want to ask contributor
> to
> > > fix
> > > > > > > > something.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Checklist
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > is a
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > different thing - this is a set of rules
> > > which
> > > > > > must
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > followed
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> by
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > anyone.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > I do not understand how you can define
> > > > > > documentation
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > checklist.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Same problem with logging - what is
> > > "enough"?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Eduard
> > > > > > Shangareev <
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I don't understand why you are so
> > against
> > > > > > > > refactoring.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Code already smells like hell. Methods
> > > 200+
> > > > > line
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > normal.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Exchange
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > future
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > is asking to be separated on several
> > one.
> > > > > > > > Transaction
> > > > > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> could
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > understand
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > few people.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > If we separate refactoring from
> > > development
> > > > it
> > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > mean
> > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > no one
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > do it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > 2) Documentation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Everything which was asked by
> reviewers
> > to
> > > > > > clarify
> > > > > > > > > idea
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> should be
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > reflected
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > in the code.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > 3) Logging.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Logging should be enough to
> troubleshoot
> > > the
> > > > > > > problem
> > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> someone
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > comes
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > user-list with an issue in the code.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 7:06 PM,
> Dmitry
> > > > > Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > +1 to idea of checklist.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > +1 to refactoring and documenting
> code
> > > > > related
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > ticket
> > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > +/-20
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > LOC
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > least.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > If we start to do it as part of our
> > > > regular
> > > > > > > > > > > contribution,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> code
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > better, it would became common
> > practice
> > > > and
> > > > > > part
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > Apache
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > development culure.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > If we will hope we will have free
> time
> > > to
> > > > > > submit
> > > > > > > > > > > separate
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> patch
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > someday
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > have patience to complete
> > > patch-submission
> > > > > > > > process,
> > > > > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> will
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > remain
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > undocumented and poor-readable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Sincerely,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > пт, 20 апр. 2018 г. в 18:56,
> Александр
> > > > > > > Меньшиков <
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > sharplermc@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 4) Metrics.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > partially +1
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > It makes sense to have some
> minimal
> > > code
> > > > > > > > coverage
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > code in
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > PR.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IMHO.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Also, we can limit the cyclomatic
> > > > > complexity
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> code
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > PR
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > too.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 6) Refactoring
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > -1
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > I understand why people want to
> > > refactor
> > > > > old
> > > > > > > > code.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > But I think refactoring should be
> > > > always a
> > > > > > > > > separate
> > > > > > > > > > > > task.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > And it's better to remove all
> > > > refactoring
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > PR,
> > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > sense
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > the issue.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 16:54 GMT+03:00 Andrey
> > > > > Kuznetsov
> > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > stkuzma@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > What about adding the following
> > item
> > > > to
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > checklist:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > when the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > change
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > adds
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > new functionality, then unit
> tests
> > > > > should
> > > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > provided, if
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > technically possible?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > As for refactorings, in fact
> they
> > > are
> > > > > > > strongly
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> discouraged
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > today
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > unclear reason. Let's permit to
> > make
> > > > > > > > > refactorings
> > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > checklist
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > being
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > discussed. (Of cource,
> refactoring
> > > > > should
> > > > > > > > relate
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> problem
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > being
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > solved.)
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 16:16 GMT+03:00
> > Vladimir
> > > > > > Ozerov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > vozerov@gridgain.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ed,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately some of these
> > points
> > > > are
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > good
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > candidates
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > checklist because of these:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > - It must be clear and
> disallow
> > > > > > *multiple
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > interpretations*
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > - It must be *lightweight*,
> > > > otherwise
> > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> development
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > become a
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > nightmare
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > We cannot have "nice to have"
> > > points
> > > > > > here.
> > > > > > > > > > > Checklist
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > answer
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > question "is ticket eligible
> to
> > be
> > > > > > > merged?"
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Code style.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > +1
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  2) Documentation
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -1, it is impossible to define
> > > what
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > "well-documented". A
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > piece
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > could be obvious for one
> > > > contributor,
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > non-obvious
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > another.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > In
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > case this is not a blocker for
> > > > merge.
> > > > > > > > Instead,
> > > > > > > > > > > > during
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > review
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > ask
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > implementer to add more docs,
> > but
> > > it
> > > > > > > cannot
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > forced.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  3) Logging
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -1, same problem - what is
> > "enough
> > > > > > > > logging?".
> > > > > > > > > > > Enough
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > whom?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > How
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > understand whether it is
> enough
> > or
> > > > > not?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  4) Metrics
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -1, no clear boundaries, and
> > > > decision
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > whether
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> metrics
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > added
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > not should be performed during
> > > > design
> > > > > > > phase.
> > > > > > > > > As
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> before,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > it is
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > perfectly
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > valid to ask contributor to
> add
> > > > > metrics
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > clear
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > why,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > this is not part of the
> > checklist.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5) TC status
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > +1, already mentioned
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  6) Refactoring
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Strong -1. OOP is a slippery
> > > slope,
> > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > > > > good
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > and bad
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > receipts
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > all cases, hence it cannot be
> > used
> > > > in
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > checklist.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > We can borrow useful rules
> from
> > > p.2,
> > > > > p.3
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > p.4
> > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> you
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > clear
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > definitions on how to measure
> > > them.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Vladimir.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:50
> PM,
> > > > > Eduard
> > > > > > > > > > > Shangareev <
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Also, I want to add some
> > > technical
> > > > > > > > > > requirement.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Let's
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > discuss
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > them.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Code style.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The code needs to be
> formatted
> > > > > > according
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > coding
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > guidelines
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/
> > > > > > > > > confluence/display/IGNITE/
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Coding+Guidelines
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > code must not contain TODOs
> > > > without
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > ticket
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> reference.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > It is highly recommended to
> > make
> > > > > major
> > > > > > > > > > > formatting
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > existing
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > as a separate commit, to
> make
> > > > review
> > > > > > > > process
> > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > practical.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Documentation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Added code should be
> > > > > well-documented.
> > > > > > > Any
> > > > > > > > > > > methods
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > raise
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > questions
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > regarding their code flow,
> > > > > invariants,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> synchronization,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > etc.,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > must
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > documented with
> comprehensive
> > > > > javadoc.
> > > > > > > Any
> > > > > > > > > > > > reviewer
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> can
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > request
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > particular added method be
> > > > > documented.
> > > > > > > > Also,
> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > is a
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > good
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > practice
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > document old code in a 10-20
> > > lines
> > > > > > > region
> > > > > > > > > > around
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > changed
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > code.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 3) Logging.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Make sure that there are
> > enough
> > > > > > logging
> > > > > > > > > added
> > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> every
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > category
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > possible diagnostic in
> field.
> > > > Check
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > logging
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > messages
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > properly
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > spelled.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 4) Metrics.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Are there any metrics that
> > need
> > > to
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > exposed
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> user?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 5) TC status.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Recheck that there are no
> new
> > > > > failing
> > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 6) Refactoring.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The code should be better
> than
> > > > > before:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - extract method from big
> > > one;
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - do anything else to
> make
> > > code
> > > > > > > clearer
> > > > > > > > > > > (don't
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > forget
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    OOP-practise, replace
> > if-else
> > > > > hell
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> inheritance
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - split refactoring
> > > (renaming,
> > > > > code
> > > > > > > > > format)
> > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > actual
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    separate commit
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:23
> > PM,
> > > > > > Eduard
> > > > > > > > > > > > Shangareev <
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, guys.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that we should
> > > update
> > > > > > > > > maintainers
> > > > > > > > > > > list
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > before
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > adding
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > review
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > requirement.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > There should not be the
> > > > situation
> > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> only
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > contributor
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > is responsible for a
> > > component.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > We already have issues
> with
> > > > review
> > > > > > > speed
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> response
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > time.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at
> 2:17
> > > PM,
> > > > > > Anton
> > > > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> <
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vova,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Everything you described
> > > sound
> > > > > > good
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to propose to
> > > create
> > > > > > > special
> > > > > > > > > page
> > > > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > > AI
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Wiki
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > describe
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > checklist.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case we'll find
> > something
> > > > > > should
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > changed/improved
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > update the page.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 0:53
> GMT+03:00
> > > > > Nikolay
> > > > > > > > > Izhikov
> > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > nizhikov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Vladimir.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for seting
> up
> > > this
> > > > > > > > > discussion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As we discussed, I
> think
> > > an
> > > > > > > > important
> > > > > > > > > > part
> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > check
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > list
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > compatibility rules.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * What should be
> > backward
> > > > > > > > compatible?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * How should we
> maintain
> > > it?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) If ticket changes
> > > > public
> > > > > > API
> > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > existing
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > behavior,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > least
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > two
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commiters should
> approve
> > > the
> > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can learn from
> other
> > > open
> > > > > > > source
> > > > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > experience.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Apache Kafka [1], for
> > > > example,
> > > > > > > > > requires
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> KIP(kafka
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > improvement
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > proposal)
> > > > > > > >

Re: Ticket review checklist

[Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>]

 >> U.error(log, "Unexpected exception during cache update", e);
>> I mean, we genuinely don't know what happened here.
Fully agree with Ilya.
In some cases it's impossible to explain the reason.
All we can is just to log the error.

>> Error text `Unexpected exception during cache update` is brilliant
example
>> how product should not behave.
Dmitry, could you please provide correct message for this case?


чт, 10 мая 2018 г. в 16:23, Ilya Kasnacheev <il...@gmail.com>:

> Dmitry,
>
> can you please perform an excercise of looking that piece of code up
>
> (org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.distributed.dht.atomic.GridDhtAtomicCache),
> telling us how an ideal message should look like in this case?
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Ilya Kasnacheev
>
> 2018-05-10 16:15 GMT+03:00 Dmitry Pavlov <dp...@gmail.com>:
>
> > Hi Ilya,
> >
> > Error text `Unexpected exception during cache update` is brilliant
> example
> > how product should not behave.
> >
> > So requiring contributors to explain reasons of failure would be good
> first
> > step to come to situation that exception text is so clear that user will
> > know what to do. It will defenetely reduce number of messages to user
> list.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Dmitriy Pavlov
> >
> >
> > чт, 10 мая 2018 г. в 15:50, Ilya Kasnacheev <il...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > I don't think I quite understand how exception explanations should
> work.
> > >
> > > Imagine we have the following exception:
> > >
> > > // At least RuntimeException can be thrown by the code above when
> > > GridCacheContext is cleaned and there is
> > > // an attempt to use cleaned resources.
> > > U.error(log, "Unexpected exception during cache update", e);
> > >
> > > I mean, we genuinely don't know what happened here.
> > >
> > > Under new rules, what kind of "workaround" would that exception
> suggest?
> > > "Try turning it off and then back on"?
> > > What explanation how to resolve this exception can we offer? "Please
> > write
> > > to dev@apache.ignite.org or to Apache JIRA, and then wait for a
> release
> > > with fix?"
> > >
> > > I'm really confused how we can implement 1.6 and 1.7 when dealing with
> > > messy real-world code.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Ilya Kasnacheev
> > >
> > > 2018-05-10 11:39 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>:
> > >
> > > > Andrey, Anton, Alex
> > > >
> > > > Agree, *SHOULD* is more appropriate here.
> > > >
> > > > Please see latest version below. Does anyone want to add or change
> > > > something? Let's wait for several days for more feedback and then
> > publish
> > > > and announce this list. Note that it would not be carved in stone and
> > we
> > > > will be able to change it at any time if needed.
> > > >
> > > > 1) API
> > > > 1.1) API compatibility *MUST* be maintained between minor releases.
> Do
> > > not
> > > > remove existing methods or change their signatures, deprecate them
> > > instead
> > > > 1.2) Default behaviour "SHOULD NOT* be changed between minor
> releases,
> > > > unless absolutely needed. If change is made, it *MUST* be described
> in
> > > > "Migration Guide"
> > > > 1.3) New operation *MUST* be well-documented in code (javadoc,
> > > dotnetdoc):
> > > > documentation must contain method's purpose, description of
> parameters
> > > and
> > > > how their values affect the outcome, description of return value and
> > it's
> > > > default, behavior in negative cases, interaction with other
> operations
> > > and
> > > > components
> > > > 1.4) API parity between Java and .NET platforms *SHOULD* be
> maintained
> > > when
> > > > operation makes sense on both platforms. If method cannot be
> > implemented
> > > in
> > > > a platform immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be created and linked
> to
> > > > current ticket
> > > > 1.5) API parity between thin clients (Java, .NET) *SHOULD* be
> > maintained
> > > > when operation makes sense on several clients. If method cannot be
> > > > implemented in a client immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be
> created
> > > and
> > > > linked to current ticket
> > > > 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user **SHOULD** have explanation how
> to
> > > > resolve, workaround or debug an error
> > > >
> > > > 2) Compatibility
> > > > 2.1) Persistence backward compatibility *MUST* be maintained between
> > > minor
> > > > releases. It should be possible to start newer version on data files
> > > > created by the previous version
> > > > 2.2) Thin client forward and backward compatibility *SHOULD* be
> > > maintained
> > > > between two consecutive minor releases. If compatibility cannot be
> > > > maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
> > > > 2.3) JDBC and ODBC forward and backward compatibility *SHOULD* be
> > > > maintained between two consecutive minor releases. If compatibility
> > > cannot
> > > > be maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
> > > >
> > > > 3) Tests
> > > > 3.1) New functionality *MUST* be covered with unit tests for both
> > > positive
> > > > and negative use cases
> > > > 3.2) All test suites *MUST* be run before merge to master..There
> *MUST*
> > > be
> > > > no new test failures
> > > >
> > > > 4) Code style *MUST* be followed as per Ignite's Coding Guidelines
> > > >
> > > > Vladimir.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 1:05 PM, Andrey Kuznetsov <st...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Anton,
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree, *MUST* for exception reasons and *SHOULD* for ways of
> > > resolution
> > > > > sound clearer.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2018-05-08 12:56 GMT+03:00 Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How about
> > > > > > 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user *MUST* have explanation of
> > > > > workaround
> > > > > > and contain original error.
> > > > > > All exceptions thrown to a user *SHOULD* have explanation how to
> > > > resolve
> > > > > if
> > > > > > possible.
> > > > > > ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > вт, 8 мая 2018 г. в 12:26, Andrey Kuznetsov <st...@gmail.com>:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Vladimir, checklist looks pleasant enough for me.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'd like to suggest one minor change. In 1.6 *MUST* seems to be
> > too
> > > > > > strict,
> > > > > > > *SHOULD* would be enough. It can be frustrating for API user
> if I
> > > > > explain
> > > > > > > how to fix NPEs in a trivial way, for example.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2018-05-08 11:34 GMT+03:00 Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Alex,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It is not sounds like that, obviously.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Tests should cover all negative and positive cases.
> > > > > > > > You should add enough tests to cover all cases.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Sometimes one test can cover more than one case, so two tests
> > > *CAN*
> > > > > > > > partially check same things.
> > > > > > > > In case some cases already covered you should not create
> > > > duplicates.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > вт, 8 мая 2018 г. в 10:19, Александр Меньшиков <
> > > > sharplermc@gmail.com
> > > > > >:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Vladimir, the 3.1 is a bit unclear for me. Which code
> > coverage
> > > is
> > > > > > > > > acceptable? Now it sounds like two tests are enough (one
> for
> > > > > positive
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > one for negative cases).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 2018-05-07 23:09 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > > > > dsetrakyan@apache.org
> > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Is this list on the Wiki?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 7:26 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > > > > > vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > This is the checklist I have at the moment. Please let
> me
> > > > know
> > > > > if
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > any comments on existing items, or want to add or
> remove
> > > > > > anything.
> > > > > > > It
> > > > > > > > > > looks
> > > > > > > > > > > like we may have not only strict rules, but *nice to
> > have*
> > > > > points
> > > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > well with help of *MUST*, *SHOULD* and *MAY* words as
> per
> > > > > RFC2119
> > > > > > > > [1].
> > > > > > > > > So
> > > > > > > > > > > please feel free to suggest optional items as well.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 1) API
> > > > > > > > > > > 1.1) API compatibility *MUST* be maintained between
> minor
> > > > > > releases.
> > > > > > > > Do
> > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > remove existing methods or change their signatures,
> > > deprecate
> > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > instead
> > > > > > > > > > > 1.2) Default behaviour "SHOULD NOT* be changed between
> > > minor
> > > > > > > > releases,
> > > > > > > > > > > unless absolutely needed. If change is made, it *MUST*
> be
> > > > > > described
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > "Migration Guide"
> > > > > > > > > > > 1.3) New operation *MUST* be well-documented in code
> > > > (javadoc,
> > > > > > > > > > dotnetdoc):
> > > > > > > > > > > documentation must contain method's purpose,
> description
> > of
> > > > > > > > parameters
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > how their values affect the outcome, description of
> > return
> > > > > value
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > default, behavior in negative cases, interaction with
> > other
> > > > > > > > operations
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > components
> > > > > > > > > > > 1.4) API parity between Java and .NET platforms
> *SHOULD*
> > be
> > > > > > > > maintained
> > > > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > > operation makes sense on both platforms. If method
> cannot
> > > be
> > > > > > > > > implemented
> > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > a platform immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be
> created
> > > and
> > > > > > > linked
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > current ticket
> > > > > > > > > > > 1.5) API parity between thin clients (Java, .NET)
> > *SHOULD*
> > > be
> > > > > > > > > maintained
> > > > > > > > > > > when operation makes sense on several clients. If
> method
> > > > cannot
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > implemented in a client immediately, new JIRA ticket
> > *MUST*
> > > > be
> > > > > > > > created
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > linked to current ticket
> > > > > > > > > > > 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user *MUST* have
> > > explanation
> > > > > how
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > resolve, workaround or debug an error
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 2) Compatibility
> > > > > > > > > > > 2.1) Persistence backward compatibility *MUST* be
> > > maintained
> > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > > minor
> > > > > > > > > > > releases. It should be possible to start newer version
> on
> > > > data
> > > > > > > files
> > > > > > > > > > > created by the previous version
> > > > > > > > > > > 2.2) Thin client forward and backward compatibility
> > > *SHOULD*
> > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > maintained
> > > > > > > > > > > between two consecutive minor releases. If
> compatibility
> > > > cannot
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
> > > > > > > > > > > 2.3) JDBC and ODBC forward and backward compatibility
> > > > *SHOULD*
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > maintained between two consecutive minor releases. If
> > > > > > compatibility
> > > > > > > > > > cannot
> > > > > > > > > > > be maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration
> Guide"
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 3) Tests
> > > > > > > > > > > 3.1) New functionality *MUST* be covered with unit
> tests
> > > for
> > > > > both
> > > > > > > > > > positive
> > > > > > > > > > > and negative use cases
> > > > > > > > > > > 3.2) All test suites *MUST* be run before merge to
> > > > > master..There
> > > > > > > > *MUST*
> > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > no new test failures
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 4) Code style *MUST* be followed as per Ignite's Coding
> > > > > > Guidelines
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Vladimir.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > > > > > > vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Dmitry,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I'll do that in the nearest days.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Igniters, the idea was related to small refactorings
> > > > > > co-located
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > main
> > > > > > > > > > > >> change.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Main change itself indicates that existing code did
> > not
> > > > meet
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > criteria
> > > > > > > > > > > >> of practice. Approving of standalone refactorings
> > > instead
> > > > > > > > > contradicts
> > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > >> principle don't touch if it works. So I still like
> > idea
> > > of
> > > > > > > > > co-located
> > > > > > > > > > > >> changes improving code, javadocs, style, etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> But let's not argue about this point now, let's
> > > summarize
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > undisputed
> > > > > > > > > > > >> points and add it to the wiki. Vladimir, would you
> > > please
> > > > do
> > > > > > it?
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> ср, 25 апр. 2018 г. в 16:42, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > > > nizhikov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > I agree with Vova.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > Don't fix if it works!
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > If you 100% sure then it a useful addition to the
> > > > product
> > > > > -
> > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > separate ticket.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > В Ср, 25/04/2018 в 11:44 +0300, Vladimir Ozerov
> > пишет:
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Guys,
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > The problem with in-place refactorings is that
> you
> > > > > > increase
> > > > > > > > > > affected
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > scope.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > It is not uncommon to break compatibility or
> > public
> > > > > > > contracts
> > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > >> even
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > minor things. E.g. recently we decided drop
> > > org.jsr166
> > > > > > > package
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > >> favor
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > of
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Java 8 classes. Innocent change. Result - broken
> > > > > storage.
> > > > > > > > > Another
> > > > > > > > > > > >> problem
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > is conflicts. It is not uncommon to have
> > long-lived
> > > > > > branches
> > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > need
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > to merge with master over and over again. And a
> > lot
> > > of
> > > > > > > > > > refactorings
> > > > > > > > > > > >> cause
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > conflicts. It is much easier to resolve them if
> > you
> > > > know
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > logic
> > > > > > > > > > > >> was
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > not
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > affected as opposed to cases when you need to
> > > resolve
> > > > > both
> > > > > > > > > renames
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > method extractions along with business-logic
> > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > I'd like to repeat - if you have a time for
> > > > refactoring
> > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > definitely
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > have a time to extract these changes to separate
> > PR
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > submit a
> > > > > > > > > > > >> separate
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > ticket. I am quite understand what "low
> priority"
> > do
> > > > you
> > > > > > > mean
> > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > >> do
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > refactorings on your own.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 10:52 PM, Andrey
> > Kuznetsov <
> > > > > > > > > > > stkuzma@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > +1.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Once again, I beg for "small refactoring
> > > permission"
> > > > > in
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > checklist.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > As of
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > today, separate tickets for small refactorings
> > has
> > > > > > lowest
> > > > > > > > > > > priority,
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > since
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > they neither fix any flaw nor add new
> > > functionality.
> > > > > > Also,
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > attempts to
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > make issue-related code safer / cleaner / more
> > > > > readable
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > "real"
> > > > > > > > > > > >> pull
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > requests are typically rejected, since they
> > > > contradict
> > > > > > our
> > > > > > > > > > current
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > guidelines.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > I understand this will require a bit more
> effort
> > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > committer/maintainer,
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > but otherwise we will get constantly degrading
> > > code
> > > > > > > quality.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > 2018-04-24 18:52 GMT+03:00 Eduard Shangareev <
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Vladimir,
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > I am not talking about massive/sophisticated
> > > > > > > refactoring.
> > > > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > believe
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > that ask to extract some methods should be
> OK
> > to
> > > > do
> > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > >> extra
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > ticket.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > A checklist shouldn't be necessarily a set
> of
> > > > > certain
> > > > > > > > rules
> > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > >> also
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > it
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > could include suggestion and reminders.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 6:39 PM, Vladimir
> > > Ozerov <
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Ed,
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Refactoring is a separate task. If you
> would
> > > > like
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > rework
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > exchange
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > future
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > - please do this in a ticket "Refactor
> > > exchange
> > > > > > task",
> > > > > > > > > > nobody
> > > > > > > > > > > >> would
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > against
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > this. This is just a matter of creating
> > > separate
> > > > > > > ticket
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > separate
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > PR.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > one have a time for refactoring, it should
> > not
> > > > be
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > problem
> > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > him to
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > spend several minutes on JIRA and GitHub.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > As far as documentation - what you
> describe
> > is
> > > > > > normal
> > > > > > > > > review
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > process,
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > reviewer might want to ask contributor to
> > fix
> > > > > > > something.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Checklist
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > is a
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > different thing - this is a set of rules
> > which
> > > > > must
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > followed
> > > > > > > > > > > >> by
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > anyone.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > I do not understand how you can define
> > > > > documentation
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > checklist.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Same problem with logging - what is
> > "enough"?
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Eduard
> > > > > Shangareev <
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I don't understand why you are so
> against
> > > > > > > refactoring.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Code already smells like hell. Methods
> > 200+
> > > > line
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > normal.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > Exchange
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > future
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > is asking to be separated on several
> one.
> > > > > > > Transaction
> > > > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > > > > >> could
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > understand
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > few people.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > If we separate refactoring from
> > development
> > > it
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > mean
> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > no one
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > do it.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > 2) Documentation.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Everything which was asked by reviewers
> to
> > > > > clarify
> > > > > > > > idea
> > > > > > > > > > > >> should be
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > reflected
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > in the code.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > 3) Logging.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Logging should be enough to troubleshoot
> > the
> > > > > > problem
> > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > >> someone
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > comes
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > user-list with an issue in the code.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 7:06 PM, Dmitry
> > > > Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > +1 to idea of checklist.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > +1 to refactoring and documenting code
> > > > related
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > ticket
> > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > +/-20
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > LOC
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > least.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > If we start to do it as part of our
> > > regular
> > > > > > > > > > contribution,
> > > > > > > > > > > >> code
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > will
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > better, it would became common
> practice
> > > and
> > > > > part
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > Apache
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > development culure.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > If we will hope we will have free time
> > to
> > > > > submit
> > > > > > > > > > separate
> > > > > > > > > > > >> patch
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > someday
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > have patience to complete
> > patch-submission
> > > > > > > process,
> > > > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > > > > >> will
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > remain
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > undocumented and poor-readable.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Sincerely,
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > пт, 20 апр. 2018 г. в 18:56, Александр
> > > > > > Меньшиков <
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > sharplermc@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 4) Metrics.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > partially +1
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > It makes sense to have some minimal
> > code
> > > > > > > coverage
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > code in
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > PR.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IMHO.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Also, we can limit the cyclomatic
> > > > complexity
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > >> code
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > in
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > PR
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > too.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 6) Refactoring
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > -1
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > I understand why people want to
> > refactor
> > > > old
> > > > > > > code.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > But I think refactoring should be
> > > always a
> > > > > > > > separate
> > > > > > > > > > > task.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > And it's better to remove all
> > > refactoring
> > > > > from
> > > > > > > PR,
> > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > not
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > sense
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > the issue.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 16:54 GMT+03:00 Andrey
> > > > Kuznetsov
> > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > stkuzma@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > What about adding the following
> item
> > > to
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > checklist:
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > when the
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > change
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > adds
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > new functionality, then unit tests
> > > > should
> > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > provided, if
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > technically possible?
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > As for refactorings, in fact they
> > are
> > > > > > strongly
> > > > > > > > > > > >> discouraged
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > today
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > unclear reason. Let's permit to
> make
> > > > > > > > refactorings
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > checklist
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > being
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > discussed. (Of cource, refactoring
> > > > should
> > > > > > > relate
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > >> problem
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > being
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > solved.)
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 16:16 GMT+03:00
> Vladimir
> > > > > Ozerov <
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > vozerov@gridgain.com
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ed,
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately some of these
> points
> > > are
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > > good
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > candidates
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > checklist because of these:
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > - It must be clear and disallow
> > > > > *multiple
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > interpretations*
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > - It must be *lightweight*,
> > > otherwise
> > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > >> development
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > become a
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > nightmare
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > We cannot have "nice to have"
> > points
> > > > > here.
> > > > > > > > > > Checklist
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > should
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > answer
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > question "is ticket eligible to
> be
> > > > > > merged?"
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Code style.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > +1
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  2) Documentation
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -1, it is impossible to define
> > what
> > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > "well-documented". A
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > piece
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > could be obvious for one
> > > contributor,
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > non-obvious
> > > > > > > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > another.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > In
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > case this is not a blocker for
> > > merge.
> > > > > > > Instead,
> > > > > > > > > > > during
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > review
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > ask
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > implementer to add more docs,
> but
> > it
> > > > > > cannot
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > forced.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  3) Logging
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -1, same problem - what is
> "enough
> > > > > > > logging?".
> > > > > > > > > > Enough
> > > > > > > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > whom?
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > How
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > understand whether it is enough
> or
> > > > not?
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  4) Metrics
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -1, no clear boundaries, and
> > > decision
> > > > on
> > > > > > > > whether
> > > > > > > > > > > >> metrics
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > are
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > added
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > not should be performed during
> > > design
> > > > > > phase.
> > > > > > > > As
> > > > > > > > > > > >> before,
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > it is
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > perfectly
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > valid to ask contributor to add
> > > > metrics
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > clear
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > why,
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > this is not part of the
> checklist.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5) TC status
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > +1, already mentioned
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  6) Refactoring
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Strong -1. OOP is a slippery
> > slope,
> > > > > there
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > > > good
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > and bad
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > receipts
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > all cases, hence it cannot be
> used
> > > in
> > > > a
> > > > > > > > > checklist.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > We can borrow useful rules from
> > p.2,
> > > > p.3
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > p.4
> > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > >> you
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > clear
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > definitions on how to measure
> > them.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Vladimir.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:50 PM,
> > > > Eduard
> > > > > > > > > > Shangareev <
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Also, I want to add some
> > technical
> > > > > > > > > requirement.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Let's
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > discuss
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > them.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Code style.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The code needs to be formatted
> > > > > according
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > coding
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > guidelines
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/
> > > > > > > > confluence/display/IGNITE/
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Coding+Guidelines
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > code must not contain TODOs
> > > without
> > > > a
> > > > > > > ticket
> > > > > > > > > > > >> reference.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > It is highly recommended to
> make
> > > > major
> > > > > > > > > > formatting
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > existing
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > as a separate commit, to make
> > > review
> > > > > > > process
> > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > practical.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Documentation.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Added code should be
> > > > well-documented.
> > > > > > Any
> > > > > > > > > > methods
> > > > > > > > > > > >> that
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > raise
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > questions
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > regarding their code flow,
> > > > invariants,
> > > > > > > > > > > >> synchronization,
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > etc.,
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > must
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > documented with comprehensive
> > > > javadoc.
> > > > > > Any
> > > > > > > > > > > reviewer
> > > > > > > > > > > >> can
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > request
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > particular added method be
> > > > documented.
> > > > > > > Also,
> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > is a
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > good
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > practice
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > document old code in a 10-20
> > lines
> > > > > > region
> > > > > > > > > around
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > changed
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > code.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 3) Logging.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Make sure that there are
> enough
> > > > > logging
> > > > > > > > added
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > >> every
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > category
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > possible diagnostic in field.
> > > Check
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > logging
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > messages
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > properly
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > spelled.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 4) Metrics.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Are there any metrics that
> need
> > to
> > > > be
> > > > > > > > exposed
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > >> user?
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 5) TC status.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Recheck that there are no new
> > > > failing
> > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 6) Refactoring.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The code should be better than
> > > > before:
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - extract method from big
> > one;
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - do anything else to make
> > code
> > > > > > clearer
> > > > > > > > > > (don't
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > forget
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    OOP-practise, replace
> if-else
> > > > hell
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > >> inheritance
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - split refactoring
> > (renaming,
> > > > code
> > > > > > > > format)
> > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > actual
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    separate commit
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:23
> PM,
> > > > > Eduard
> > > > > > > > > > > Shangareev <
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, guys.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that we should
> > update
> > > > > > > > maintainers
> > > > > > > > > > list
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > before
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > adding
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > review
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > requirement.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > There should not be the
> > > situation
> > > > > when
> > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > >> only
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > one
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > contributor
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > is responsible for a
> > component.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > We already have issues with
> > > review
> > > > > > speed
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > >> response
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > time.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 2:17
> > PM,
> > > > > Anton
> > > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov
> > > > > > > > > > > >> <
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vova,
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Everything you described
> > sound
> > > > > good
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to propose to
> > create
> > > > > > special
> > > > > > > > page
> > > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > AI
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > Wiki
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > describe
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > checklist.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case we'll find
> something
> > > > > should
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > changed/improved
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > update the page.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 0:53 GMT+03:00
> > > > Nikolay
> > > > > > > > Izhikov
> > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > nizhikov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Vladimir.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for seting up
> > this
> > > > > > > > discussion.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As we discussed, I think
> > an
> > > > > > > important
> > > > > > > > > part
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > this
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > check
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > list
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > compatibility rules.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * What should be
> backward
> > > > > > > compatible?
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * How should we maintain
> > it?
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) If ticket changes
> > > public
> > > > > API
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > existing
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > behavior,
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > least
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > two
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commiters should approve
> > the
> > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can learn from other
> > open
> > > > > > source
> > > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > experience.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Apache Kafka [1], for
> > > example,
> > > > > > > > requires
> > > > > > > > > > > >> KIP(kafka
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > improvement
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > proposal)
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for *every* major
> change.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Major change definition
> > > > includes
> > > > > > > > public
> > > > > > > > > > API.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > confluence/display/KAFKA/
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > Kafka+Improvement+Proposals
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > В Чт, 19/04/2018 в 23:00
> > > > +0300,
> > > > > > > > Vladimir
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Ozerov
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > пишет:
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's glad to see our
> > > > community
> > > > > > > > becomes
> > > > > > > > > > > >> larger
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > every
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > day.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > grows
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes more and more
> > > > > difficult
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > manage
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > review and
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > processes
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > keep quality of our
> > > > decisions
> > > > > at
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > proper
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > level.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > More
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > contributors,
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commits, more
> components
> > > > > > > interlinked
> > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > >> each
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > other
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > subtle
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > ways.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to
> propose
> > to
> > > > > > setup a
> > > > > > > > > > formal
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > review
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > checklist.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be a
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > set of actions every
> > > > reviewer
> > > > > > > needs
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > check
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > before
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > approving
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >

Re: Ticket review checklist

[Ilya Kasnacheev <il...@gmail.com>]

Dmitry,

can you please perform an excercise of looking that piece of code up
(org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.distributed.dht.atomic.GridDhtAtomicCache),
telling us how an ideal message should look like in this case?

Thanks,

-- 
Ilya Kasnacheev

2018-05-10 16:15 GMT+03:00 Dmitry Pavlov <dp...@gmail.com>:

> Hi Ilya,
>
> Error text `Unexpected exception during cache update` is brilliant example
> how product should not behave.
>
> So requiring contributors to explain reasons of failure would be good first
> step to come to situation that exception text is so clear that user will
> know what to do. It will defenetely reduce number of messages to user list.
>
> Sincerely,
> Dmitriy Pavlov
>
>
> чт, 10 мая 2018 г. в 15:50, Ilya Kasnacheev <il...@gmail.com>:
>
> > I don't think I quite understand how exception explanations should work.
> >
> > Imagine we have the following exception:
> >
> > // At least RuntimeException can be thrown by the code above when
> > GridCacheContext is cleaned and there is
> > // an attempt to use cleaned resources.
> > U.error(log, "Unexpected exception during cache update", e);
> >
> > I mean, we genuinely don't know what happened here.
> >
> > Under new rules, what kind of "workaround" would that exception suggest?
> > "Try turning it off and then back on"?
> > What explanation how to resolve this exception can we offer? "Please
> write
> > to dev@apache.ignite.org or to Apache JIRA, and then wait for a release
> > with fix?"
> >
> > I'm really confused how we can implement 1.6 and 1.7 when dealing with
> > messy real-world code.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> >
> > --
> > Ilya Kasnacheev
> >
> > 2018-05-10 11:39 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>:
> >
> > > Andrey, Anton, Alex
> > >
> > > Agree, *SHOULD* is more appropriate here.
> > >
> > > Please see latest version below. Does anyone want to add or change
> > > something? Let's wait for several days for more feedback and then
> publish
> > > and announce this list. Note that it would not be carved in stone and
> we
> > > will be able to change it at any time if needed.
> > >
> > > 1) API
> > > 1.1) API compatibility *MUST* be maintained between minor releases. Do
> > not
> > > remove existing methods or change their signatures, deprecate them
> > instead
> > > 1.2) Default behaviour "SHOULD NOT* be changed between minor releases,
> > > unless absolutely needed. If change is made, it *MUST* be described in
> > > "Migration Guide"
> > > 1.3) New operation *MUST* be well-documented in code (javadoc,
> > dotnetdoc):
> > > documentation must contain method's purpose, description of parameters
> > and
> > > how their values affect the outcome, description of return value and
> it's
> > > default, behavior in negative cases, interaction with other operations
> > and
> > > components
> > > 1.4) API parity between Java and .NET platforms *SHOULD* be maintained
> > when
> > > operation makes sense on both platforms. If method cannot be
> implemented
> > in
> > > a platform immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be created and linked to
> > > current ticket
> > > 1.5) API parity between thin clients (Java, .NET) *SHOULD* be
> maintained
> > > when operation makes sense on several clients. If method cannot be
> > > implemented in a client immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be created
> > and
> > > linked to current ticket
> > > 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user **SHOULD** have explanation how to
> > > resolve, workaround or debug an error
> > >
> > > 2) Compatibility
> > > 2.1) Persistence backward compatibility *MUST* be maintained between
> > minor
> > > releases. It should be possible to start newer version on data files
> > > created by the previous version
> > > 2.2) Thin client forward and backward compatibility *SHOULD* be
> > maintained
> > > between two consecutive minor releases. If compatibility cannot be
> > > maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
> > > 2.3) JDBC and ODBC forward and backward compatibility *SHOULD* be
> > > maintained between two consecutive minor releases. If compatibility
> > cannot
> > > be maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
> > >
> > > 3) Tests
> > > 3.1) New functionality *MUST* be covered with unit tests for both
> > positive
> > > and negative use cases
> > > 3.2) All test suites *MUST* be run before merge to master..There *MUST*
> > be
> > > no new test failures
> > >
> > > 4) Code style *MUST* be followed as per Ignite's Coding Guidelines
> > >
> > > Vladimir.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 1:05 PM, Andrey Kuznetsov <st...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Anton,
> > > >
> > > > I agree, *MUST* for exception reasons and *SHOULD* for ways of
> > resolution
> > > > sound clearer.
> > > >
> > > > 2018-05-08 12:56 GMT+03:00 Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > > >
> > > > > Andrey,
> > > > >
> > > > > How about
> > > > > 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user *MUST* have explanation of
> > > > workaround
> > > > > and contain original error.
> > > > > All exceptions thrown to a user *SHOULD* have explanation how to
> > > resolve
> > > > if
> > > > > possible.
> > > > > ?
> > > > >
> > > > > вт, 8 мая 2018 г. в 12:26, Andrey Kuznetsov <st...@gmail.com>:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Vladimir, checklist looks pleasant enough for me.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'd like to suggest one minor change. In 1.6 *MUST* seems to be
> too
> > > > > strict,
> > > > > > *SHOULD* would be enough. It can be frustrating for API user if I
> > > > explain
> > > > > > how to fix NPEs in a trivial way, for example.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2018-05-08 11:34 GMT+03:00 Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Alex,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It is not sounds like that, obviously.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Tests should cover all negative and positive cases.
> > > > > > > You should add enough tests to cover all cases.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sometimes one test can cover more than one case, so two tests
> > *CAN*
> > > > > > > partially check same things.
> > > > > > > In case some cases already covered you should not create
> > > duplicates.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > вт, 8 мая 2018 г. в 10:19, Александр Меньшиков <
> > > sharplermc@gmail.com
> > > > >:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Vladimir, the 3.1 is a bit unclear for me. Which code
> coverage
> > is
> > > > > > > > acceptable? Now it sounds like two tests are enough (one for
> > > > positive
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > one for negative cases).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2018-05-07 23:09 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > > > dsetrakyan@apache.org
> > > > > >:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Is this list on the Wiki?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 7:26 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > > > > vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > This is the checklist I have at the moment. Please let me
> > > know
> > > > if
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > any comments on existing items, or want to add or remove
> > > > > anything.
> > > > > > It
> > > > > > > > > looks
> > > > > > > > > > like we may have not only strict rules, but *nice to
> have*
> > > > points
> > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > well with help of *MUST*, *SHOULD* and *MAY* words as per
> > > > RFC2119
> > > > > > > [1].
> > > > > > > > So
> > > > > > > > > > please feel free to suggest optional items as well.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 1) API
> > > > > > > > > > 1.1) API compatibility *MUST* be maintained between minor
> > > > > releases.
> > > > > > > Do
> > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > remove existing methods or change their signatures,
> > deprecate
> > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > instead
> > > > > > > > > > 1.2) Default behaviour "SHOULD NOT* be changed between
> > minor
> > > > > > > releases,
> > > > > > > > > > unless absolutely needed. If change is made, it *MUST* be
> > > > > described
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > "Migration Guide"
> > > > > > > > > > 1.3) New operation *MUST* be well-documented in code
> > > (javadoc,
> > > > > > > > > dotnetdoc):
> > > > > > > > > > documentation must contain method's purpose, description
> of
> > > > > > > parameters
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > how their values affect the outcome, description of
> return
> > > > value
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > default, behavior in negative cases, interaction with
> other
> > > > > > > operations
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > components
> > > > > > > > > > 1.4) API parity between Java and .NET platforms *SHOULD*
> be
> > > > > > > maintained
> > > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > operation makes sense on both platforms. If method cannot
> > be
> > > > > > > > implemented
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > a platform immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be created
> > and
> > > > > > linked
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > current ticket
> > > > > > > > > > 1.5) API parity between thin clients (Java, .NET)
> *SHOULD*
> > be
> > > > > > > > maintained
> > > > > > > > > > when operation makes sense on several clients. If method
> > > cannot
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > implemented in a client immediately, new JIRA ticket
> *MUST*
> > > be
> > > > > > > created
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > linked to current ticket
> > > > > > > > > > 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user *MUST* have
> > explanation
> > > > how
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > resolve, workaround or debug an error
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 2) Compatibility
> > > > > > > > > > 2.1) Persistence backward compatibility *MUST* be
> > maintained
> > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > minor
> > > > > > > > > > releases. It should be possible to start newer version on
> > > data
> > > > > > files
> > > > > > > > > > created by the previous version
> > > > > > > > > > 2.2) Thin client forward and backward compatibility
> > *SHOULD*
> > > be
> > > > > > > > > maintained
> > > > > > > > > > between two consecutive minor releases. If compatibility
> > > cannot
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
> > > > > > > > > > 2.3) JDBC and ODBC forward and backward compatibility
> > > *SHOULD*
> > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > maintained between two consecutive minor releases. If
> > > > > compatibility
> > > > > > > > > cannot
> > > > > > > > > > be maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 3) Tests
> > > > > > > > > > 3.1) New functionality *MUST* be covered with unit tests
> > for
> > > > both
> > > > > > > > > positive
> > > > > > > > > > and negative use cases
> > > > > > > > > > 3.2) All test suites *MUST* be run before merge to
> > > > master..There
> > > > > > > *MUST*
> > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > no new test failures
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 4) Code style *MUST* be followed as per Ignite's Coding
> > > > > Guidelines
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Vladimir.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > [1] https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > > > > > vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Dmitry,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I'll do that in the nearest days.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> Igniters, the idea was related to small refactorings
> > > > > co-located
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > main
> > > > > > > > > > >> change.
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> Main change itself indicates that existing code did
> not
> > > meet
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > criteria
> > > > > > > > > > >> of practice. Approving of standalone refactorings
> > instead
> > > > > > > > contradicts
> > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > >> principle don't touch if it works. So I still like
> idea
> > of
> > > > > > > > co-located
> > > > > > > > > > >> changes improving code, javadocs, style, etc.
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> But let's not argue about this point now, let's
> > summarize
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > undisputed
> > > > > > > > > > >> points and add it to the wiki. Vladimir, would you
> > please
> > > do
> > > > > it?
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> ср, 25 апр. 2018 г. в 16:42, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > > nizhikov@apache.org
> > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > I agree with Vova.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > Don't fix if it works!
> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > If you 100% sure then it a useful addition to the
> > > product
> > > > -
> > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > >> > separate ticket.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > В Ср, 25/04/2018 в 11:44 +0300, Vladimir Ozerov
> пишет:
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > Guys,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > The problem with in-place refactorings is that you
> > > > > increase
> > > > > > > > > affected
> > > > > > > > > > >> > scope.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > It is not uncommon to break compatibility or
> public
> > > > > > contracts
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > >> even
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > minor things. E.g. recently we decided drop
> > org.jsr166
> > > > > > package
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > >> favor
> > > > > > > > > > >> > of
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > Java 8 classes. Innocent change. Result - broken
> > > > storage.
> > > > > > > > Another
> > > > > > > > > > >> problem
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > is conflicts. It is not uncommon to have
> long-lived
> > > > > branches
> > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > >> > need
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > to merge with master over and over again. And a
> lot
> > of
> > > > > > > > > refactorings
> > > > > > > > > > >> cause
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > conflicts. It is much easier to resolve them if
> you
> > > know
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > logic
> > > > > > > > > > >> was
> > > > > > > > > > >> > not
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > affected as opposed to cases when you need to
> > resolve
> > > > both
> > > > > > > > renames
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > method extractions along with business-logic
> > changes.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > I'd like to repeat - if you have a time for
> > > refactoring
> > > > > then
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > >> > definitely
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > have a time to extract these changes to separate
> PR
> > > and
> > > > > > > submit a
> > > > > > > > > > >> separate
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > ticket. I am quite understand what "low priority"
> do
> > > you
> > > > > > mean
> > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > >> do
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > refactorings on your own.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 10:52 PM, Andrey
> Kuznetsov <
> > > > > > > > > > stkuzma@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > +1.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Once again, I beg for "small refactoring
> > permission"
> > > > in
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > checklist.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > As of
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > today, separate tickets for small refactorings
> has
> > > > > lowest
> > > > > > > > > > priority,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > since
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > they neither fix any flaw nor add new
> > functionality.
> > > > > Also,
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> > attempts to
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > make issue-related code safer / cleaner / more
> > > > readable
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > "real"
> > > > > > > > > > >> pull
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > requests are typically rejected, since they
> > > contradict
> > > > > our
> > > > > > > > > current
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > guidelines.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > I understand this will require a bit more effort
> > > from
> > > > > > > > > > >> > committer/maintainer,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > but otherwise we will get constantly degrading
> > code
> > > > > > quality.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > 2018-04-24 18:52 GMT+03:00 Eduard Shangareev <
> > > > > > > > > > >> > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Vladimir,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > I am not talking about massive/sophisticated
> > > > > > refactoring.
> > > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > >> > believe
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > that ask to extract some methods should be OK
> to
> > > do
> > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > >> extra
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > ticket.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > A checklist shouldn't be necessarily a set of
> > > > certain
> > > > > > > rules
> > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > >> also
> > > > > > > > > > >> > it
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > could include suggestion and reminders.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 6:39 PM, Vladimir
> > Ozerov <
> > > > > > > > > > >> > vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Ed,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Refactoring is a separate task. If you would
> > > like
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > rework
> > > > > > > > > > >> > exchange
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > future
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > - please do this in a ticket "Refactor
> > exchange
> > > > > task",
> > > > > > > > > nobody
> > > > > > > > > > >> would
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > against
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > this. This is just a matter of creating
> > separate
> > > > > > ticket
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > >> > separate
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > PR.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > one have a time for refactoring, it should
> not
> > > be
> > > > a
> > > > > > > > problem
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > >> > him to
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > spend several minutes on JIRA and GitHub.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > As far as documentation - what you describe
> is
> > > > > normal
> > > > > > > > review
> > > > > > > > > > >> > process,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > reviewer might want to ask contributor to
> fix
> > > > > > something.
> > > > > > > > > > >> Checklist
> > > > > > > > > > >> > is a
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > different thing - this is a set of rules
> which
> > > > must
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > followed
> > > > > > > > > > >> by
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > anyone.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > I do not understand how you can define
> > > > documentation
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > >> > checklist.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Same problem with logging - what is
> "enough"?
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Eduard
> > > > Shangareev <
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I don't understand why you are so against
> > > > > > refactoring.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Code already smells like hell. Methods
> 200+
> > > line
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > normal.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > Exchange
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > future
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > is asking to be separated on several one.
> > > > > > Transaction
> > > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > > > >> could
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > understand
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > few people.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > If we separate refactoring from
> development
> > it
> > > > > would
> > > > > > > > mean
> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > >> > no one
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > do it.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > 2) Documentation.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Everything which was asked by reviewers to
> > > > clarify
> > > > > > > idea
> > > > > > > > > > >> should be
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > reflected
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > in the code.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > 3) Logging.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Logging should be enough to troubleshoot
> the
> > > > > problem
> > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > >> someone
> > > > > > > > > > >> > comes
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > user-list with an issue in the code.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 7:06 PM, Dmitry
> > > Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > +1 to idea of checklist.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > +1 to refactoring and documenting code
> > > related
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > ticket
> > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > >> > +/-20
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > LOC
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > least.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > If we start to do it as part of our
> > regular
> > > > > > > > > contribution,
> > > > > > > > > > >> code
> > > > > > > > > > >> > will
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > better, it would became common practice
> > and
> > > > part
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > Apache
> > > > > > > > > > >> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > development culure.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > If we will hope we will have free time
> to
> > > > submit
> > > > > > > > > separate
> > > > > > > > > > >> patch
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > someday
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > have patience to complete
> patch-submission
> > > > > > process,
> > > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > > > >> will
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > remain
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > undocumented and poor-readable.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Sincerely,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > пт, 20 апр. 2018 г. в 18:56, Александр
> > > > > Меньшиков <
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > sharplermc@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 4) Metrics.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > partially +1
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > It makes sense to have some minimal
> code
> > > > > > coverage
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > >> > code in
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > PR.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IMHO.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Also, we can limit the cyclomatic
> > > complexity
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > >> code
> > > > > > > > > > >> > in
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > PR
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > too.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 6) Refactoring
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > -1
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > I understand why people want to
> refactor
> > > old
> > > > > > code.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > But I think refactoring should be
> > always a
> > > > > > > separate
> > > > > > > > > > task.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > And it's better to remove all
> > refactoring
> > > > from
> > > > > > PR,
> > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > >> > not
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > sense
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > the issue.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 16:54 GMT+03:00 Andrey
> > > Kuznetsov
> > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > >> > stkuzma@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > What about adding the following item
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > checklist:
> > > > > > > > > > >> > when the
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > change
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > adds
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > new functionality, then unit tests
> > > should
> > > > > also
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > >> > provided, if
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > technically possible?
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > As for refactorings, in fact they
> are
> > > > > strongly
> > > > > > > > > > >> discouraged
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > today
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > unclear reason. Let's permit to make
> > > > > > > refactorings
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > checklist
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > being
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > discussed. (Of cource, refactoring
> > > should
> > > > > > relate
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >> problem
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > being
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > solved.)
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 16:16 GMT+03:00 Vladimir
> > > > Ozerov <
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > vozerov@gridgain.com
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ed,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately some of these points
> > are
> > > > not
> > > > > > > good
> > > > > > > > > > >> > candidates
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > checklist because of these:
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > - It must be clear and disallow
> > > > *multiple
> > > > > > > > > > >> > interpretations*
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > - It must be *lightweight*,
> > otherwise
> > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > >> development
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > become a
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > nightmare
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > We cannot have "nice to have"
> points
> > > > here.
> > > > > > > > > Checklist
> > > > > > > > > > >> > should
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > answer
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > question "is ticket eligible to be
> > > > > merged?"
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Code style.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > +1
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  2) Documentation
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -1, it is impossible to define
> what
> > is
> > > > > > > > > > >> > "well-documented". A
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > piece
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > could be obvious for one
> > contributor,
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > non-obvious
> > > > > > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > another.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > In
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > case this is not a blocker for
> > merge.
> > > > > > Instead,
> > > > > > > > > > during
> > > > > > > > > > >> > review
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > ask
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > implementer to add more docs, but
> it
> > > > > cannot
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > forced.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  3) Logging
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -1, same problem - what is "enough
> > > > > > logging?".
> > > > > > > > > Enough
> > > > > > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > whom?
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > How
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > understand whether it is enough or
> > > not?
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  4) Metrics
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -1, no clear boundaries, and
> > decision
> > > on
> > > > > > > whether
> > > > > > > > > > >> metrics
> > > > > > > > > > >> > are
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > added
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > not should be performed during
> > design
> > > > > phase.
> > > > > > > As
> > > > > > > > > > >> before,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > it is
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > perfectly
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > valid to ask contributor to add
> > > metrics
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > > clear
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > why,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > this is not part of the checklist.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5) TC status
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > +1, already mentioned
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  6) Refactoring
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Strong -1. OOP is a slippery
> slope,
> > > > there
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > > good
> > > > > > > > > > >> > and bad
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > receipts
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > all cases, hence it cannot be used
> > in
> > > a
> > > > > > > > checklist.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > We can borrow useful rules from
> p.2,
> > > p.3
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > p.4
> > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > >> you
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > clear
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > definitions on how to measure
> them.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Vladimir.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:50 PM,
> > > Eduard
> > > > > > > > > Shangareev <
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Also, I want to add some
> technical
> > > > > > > > requirement.
> > > > > > > > > > >> Let's
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > discuss
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > them.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Code style.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The code needs to be formatted
> > > > according
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > coding
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > guidelines
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/
> > > > > > > confluence/display/IGNITE/
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Coding+Guidelines
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > code must not contain TODOs
> > without
> > > a
> > > > > > ticket
> > > > > > > > > > >> reference.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > It is highly recommended to make
> > > major
> > > > > > > > > formatting
> > > > > > > > > > >> > changes
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > existing
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > as a separate commit, to make
> > review
> > > > > > process
> > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > practical.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Documentation.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Added code should be
> > > well-documented.
> > > > > Any
> > > > > > > > > methods
> > > > > > > > > > >> that
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > raise
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > questions
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > regarding their code flow,
> > > invariants,
> > > > > > > > > > >> synchronization,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > etc.,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > must
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > documented with comprehensive
> > > javadoc.
> > > > > Any
> > > > > > > > > > reviewer
> > > > > > > > > > >> can
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > request
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > particular added method be
> > > documented.
> > > > > > Also,
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > is a
> > > > > > > > > > >> > good
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > practice
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > document old code in a 10-20
> lines
> > > > > region
> > > > > > > > around
> > > > > > > > > > >> > changed
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > code.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 3) Logging.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Make sure that there are enough
> > > > logging
> > > > > > > added
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > >> every
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > category
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > possible diagnostic in field.
> > Check
> > > > that
> > > > > > > > logging
> > > > > > > > > > >> > messages
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > properly
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > spelled.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 4) Metrics.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Are there any metrics that need
> to
> > > be
> > > > > > > exposed
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >> user?
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 5) TC status.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Recheck that there are no new
> > > failing
> > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 6) Refactoring.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The code should be better than
> > > before:
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - extract method from big
> one;
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - do anything else to make
> code
> > > > > clearer
> > > > > > > > > (don't
> > > > > > > > > > >> > forget
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    OOP-practise, replace if-else
> > > hell
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > >> inheritance
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - split refactoring
> (renaming,
> > > code
> > > > > > > format)
> > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > >> > actual
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    separate commit
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:23 PM,
> > > > Eduard
> > > > > > > > > > Shangareev <
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, guys.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that we should
> update
> > > > > > > maintainers
> > > > > > > > > list
> > > > > > > > > > >> > before
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > adding
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > review
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > requirement.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > There should not be the
> > situation
> > > > when
> > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > >> only
> > > > > > > > > > >> > one
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > contributor
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > is responsible for a
> component.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > We already have issues with
> > review
> > > > > speed
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > >> response
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > time.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 2:17
> PM,
> > > > Anton
> > > > > > > > > > Vinogradov
> > > > > > > > > > >> <
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vova,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Everything you described
> sound
> > > > good
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to propose to
> create
> > > > > special
> > > > > > > page
> > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > AI
> > > > > > > > > > >> > Wiki
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > describe
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > checklist.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case we'll find something
> > > > should
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > >> > changed/improved
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > update the page.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 0:53 GMT+03:00
> > > Nikolay
> > > > > > > Izhikov
> > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > nizhikov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Vladimir.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for seting up
> this
> > > > > > > discussion.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As we discussed, I think
> an
> > > > > > important
> > > > > > > > part
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > >> > this
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > check
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > list
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > compatibility rules.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * What should be backward
> > > > > > compatible?
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * How should we maintain
> it?
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) If ticket changes
> > public
> > > > API
> > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > existing
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > behavior,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > least
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > two
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commiters should approve
> the
> > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can learn from other
> open
> > > > > source
> > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > experience.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Apache Kafka [1], for
> > example,
> > > > > > > requires
> > > > > > > > > > >> KIP(kafka
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > improvement
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > proposal)
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for *every* major change.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Major change definition
> > > includes
> > > > > > > public
> > > > > > > > > API.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > confluence/display/KAFKA/
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> Kafka+Improvement+Proposals
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > В Чт, 19/04/2018 в 23:00
> > > +0300,
> > > > > > > Vladimir
> > > > > > > > > > >> Ozerov
> > > > > > > > > > >> > пишет:
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's glad to see our
> > > community
> > > > > > > becomes
> > > > > > > > > > >> larger
> > > > > > > > > > >> > every
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > day.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > grows
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes more and more
> > > > difficult
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > manage
> > > > > > > > > > >> > review and
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > processes
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > keep quality of our
> > > decisions
> > > > at
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > proper
> > > > > > > > > > >> > level.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > More
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > contributors,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commits, more components
> > > > > > interlinked
> > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > >> each
> > > > > > > > > > >> > other
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > subtle
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > ways.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to propose
> to
> > > > > setup a
> > > > > > > > > formal
> > > > > > > > > > >> > review
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > checklist.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be a
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > set of actions every
> > > reviewer
> > > > > > needs
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > check
> > > > > > > > > > >> > before
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > approving
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of a
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > certain feature. Passing
> > the
> > > > > > > checklist
> > > > > > > > > > >> would be
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > *necessary
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sufficient* phase before
> > > > commit
> > > > > > > could
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > >> added
> > > > > > > > > > >> > to
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > main
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > branch.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > checklist would help us
> to
> > > > > detect
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > lot
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > >> > common
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > problems
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > broken
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests or bad UX earlier,
> > and
> > > > > would
> > > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > > >> > contributors
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > lead
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > their
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > pull
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > requests to merge.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hallmarks of a good
> > > checklist:
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - It must be followed be
> > > > > everyone
> > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > >> > exceptions
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - It must be clear and
> > > > disallow
> > > > > > > > multiple
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > interpretations
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - It must be
> lightweight,
> > > > > > otherwise
> > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > development
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > become
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nightmare
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - It must be
> non-blocking,
> > > > i.e.
> > > > > > > > > > >> inacessibility
> > > > > > > > > > >> > of a
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > single
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > contributor
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should not block ticket
> > > > progress
> > > > > > > > > forever.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please let me know if
> you
> > > > think
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > idea
> > > > > > > > > > >> makes
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > sense.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > agree
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > let's start defining
> > action
> > > > > items
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> > checklist.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > My
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 2
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > cents:
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) All unit tests pass
> on
> > TC
> > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > >> > failures
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) If ticket targets
> > > specific
> > > > > > > > component,
> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > >> > should
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > reviewed
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > component's maintainer*
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) If ticket changes
> > public
> > > > API
> > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > existing
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > behavior,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > least
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > two
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commiters should approve
> > the
> > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > **
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vladimir.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * TBD: Review component
> > list
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > define
> > > > > > > > > > >> > maintainers;
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > define
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > do if
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > maintainer is
> unavailable
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ** TBD: Define what is
> > > "public
> > > > > > API"
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >   Andrey Kuznetsov.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >   Andrey Kuznetsov.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > >   Andrey Kuznetsov.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best regards,
> > > >   Andrey Kuznetsov.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Ticket review checklist

[Dmitry Pavlov <dp...@gmail.com>]

Hi Ilya,

Error text `Unexpected exception during cache update` is brilliant example
how product should not behave.

So requiring contributors to explain reasons of failure would be good first
step to come to situation that exception text is so clear that user will
know what to do. It will defenetely reduce number of messages to user list.

Sincerely,
Dmitriy Pavlov


чт, 10 мая 2018 г. в 15:50, Ilya Kasnacheev <il...@gmail.com>:

> I don't think I quite understand how exception explanations should work.
>
> Imagine we have the following exception:
>
> // At least RuntimeException can be thrown by the code above when
> GridCacheContext is cleaned and there is
> // an attempt to use cleaned resources.
> U.error(log, "Unexpected exception during cache update", e);
>
> I mean, we genuinely don't know what happened here.
>
> Under new rules, what kind of "workaround" would that exception suggest?
> "Try turning it off and then back on"?
> What explanation how to resolve this exception can we offer? "Please write
> to dev@apache.ignite.org or to Apache JIRA, and then wait for a release
> with fix?"
>
> I'm really confused how we can implement 1.6 and 1.7 when dealing with
> messy real-world code.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> --
> Ilya Kasnacheev
>
> 2018-05-10 11:39 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>:
>
> > Andrey, Anton, Alex
> >
> > Agree, *SHOULD* is more appropriate here.
> >
> > Please see latest version below. Does anyone want to add or change
> > something? Let's wait for several days for more feedback and then publish
> > and announce this list. Note that it would not be carved in stone and we
> > will be able to change it at any time if needed.
> >
> > 1) API
> > 1.1) API compatibility *MUST* be maintained between minor releases. Do
> not
> > remove existing methods or change their signatures, deprecate them
> instead
> > 1.2) Default behaviour "SHOULD NOT* be changed between minor releases,
> > unless absolutely needed. If change is made, it *MUST* be described in
> > "Migration Guide"
> > 1.3) New operation *MUST* be well-documented in code (javadoc,
> dotnetdoc):
> > documentation must contain method's purpose, description of parameters
> and
> > how their values affect the outcome, description of return value and it's
> > default, behavior in negative cases, interaction with other operations
> and
> > components
> > 1.4) API parity between Java and .NET platforms *SHOULD* be maintained
> when
> > operation makes sense on both platforms. If method cannot be implemented
> in
> > a platform immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be created and linked to
> > current ticket
> > 1.5) API parity between thin clients (Java, .NET) *SHOULD* be maintained
> > when operation makes sense on several clients. If method cannot be
> > implemented in a client immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be created
> and
> > linked to current ticket
> > 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user **SHOULD** have explanation how to
> > resolve, workaround or debug an error
> >
> > 2) Compatibility
> > 2.1) Persistence backward compatibility *MUST* be maintained between
> minor
> > releases. It should be possible to start newer version on data files
> > created by the previous version
> > 2.2) Thin client forward and backward compatibility *SHOULD* be
> maintained
> > between two consecutive minor releases. If compatibility cannot be
> > maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
> > 2.3) JDBC and ODBC forward and backward compatibility *SHOULD* be
> > maintained between two consecutive minor releases. If compatibility
> cannot
> > be maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
> >
> > 3) Tests
> > 3.1) New functionality *MUST* be covered with unit tests for both
> positive
> > and negative use cases
> > 3.2) All test suites *MUST* be run before merge to master..There *MUST*
> be
> > no new test failures
> >
> > 4) Code style *MUST* be followed as per Ignite's Coding Guidelines
> >
> > Vladimir.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 1:05 PM, Andrey Kuznetsov <st...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Anton,
> > >
> > > I agree, *MUST* for exception reasons and *SHOULD* for ways of
> resolution
> > > sound clearer.
> > >
> > > 2018-05-08 12:56 GMT+03:00 Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > >
> > > > Andrey,
> > > >
> > > > How about
> > > > 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user *MUST* have explanation of
> > > workaround
> > > > and contain original error.
> > > > All exceptions thrown to a user *SHOULD* have explanation how to
> > resolve
> > > if
> > > > possible.
> > > > ?
> > > >
> > > > вт, 8 мая 2018 г. в 12:26, Andrey Kuznetsov <st...@gmail.com>:
> > > >
> > > > > Vladimir, checklist looks pleasant enough for me.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd like to suggest one minor change. In 1.6 *MUST* seems to be too
> > > > strict,
> > > > > *SHOULD* would be enough. It can be frustrating for API user if I
> > > explain
> > > > > how to fix NPEs in a trivial way, for example.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2018-05-08 11:34 GMT+03:00 Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Alex,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It is not sounds like that, obviously.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tests should cover all negative and positive cases.
> > > > > > You should add enough tests to cover all cases.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sometimes one test can cover more than one case, so two tests
> *CAN*
> > > > > > partially check same things.
> > > > > > In case some cases already covered you should not create
> > duplicates.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > вт, 8 мая 2018 г. в 10:19, Александр Меньшиков <
> > sharplermc@gmail.com
> > > >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Vladimir, the 3.1 is a bit unclear for me. Which code coverage
> is
> > > > > > > acceptable? Now it sounds like two tests are enough (one for
> > > positive
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > one for negative cases).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2018-05-07 23:09 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > > dsetrakyan@apache.org
> > > > >:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Is this list on the Wiki?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 7:26 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > > > vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This is the checklist I have at the moment. Please let me
> > know
> > > if
> > > > > you
> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > any comments on existing items, or want to add or remove
> > > > anything.
> > > > > It
> > > > > > > > looks
> > > > > > > > > like we may have not only strict rules, but *nice to have*
> > > points
> > > > > > here
> > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > well with help of *MUST*, *SHOULD* and *MAY* words as per
> > > RFC2119
> > > > > > [1].
> > > > > > > So
> > > > > > > > > please feel free to suggest optional items as well.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 1) API
> > > > > > > > > 1.1) API compatibility *MUST* be maintained between minor
> > > > releases.
> > > > > > Do
> > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > remove existing methods or change their signatures,
> deprecate
> > > > them
> > > > > > > > instead
> > > > > > > > > 1.2) Default behaviour "SHOULD NOT* be changed between
> minor
> > > > > > releases,
> > > > > > > > > unless absolutely needed. If change is made, it *MUST* be
> > > > described
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > "Migration Guide"
> > > > > > > > > 1.3) New operation *MUST* be well-documented in code
> > (javadoc,
> > > > > > > > dotnetdoc):
> > > > > > > > > documentation must contain method's purpose, description of
> > > > > > parameters
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > how their values affect the outcome, description of return
> > > value
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > default, behavior in negative cases, interaction with other
> > > > > > operations
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > components
> > > > > > > > > 1.4) API parity between Java and .NET platforms *SHOULD* be
> > > > > > maintained
> > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > operation makes sense on both platforms. If method cannot
> be
> > > > > > > implemented
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > a platform immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be created
> and
> > > > > linked
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > current ticket
> > > > > > > > > 1.5) API parity between thin clients (Java, .NET) *SHOULD*
> be
> > > > > > > maintained
> > > > > > > > > when operation makes sense on several clients. If method
> > cannot
> > > > be
> > > > > > > > > implemented in a client immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST*
> > be
> > > > > > created
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > linked to current ticket
> > > > > > > > > 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user *MUST* have
> explanation
> > > how
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > > resolve, workaround or debug an error
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 2) Compatibility
> > > > > > > > > 2.1) Persistence backward compatibility *MUST* be
> maintained
> > > > > between
> > > > > > > > minor
> > > > > > > > > releases. It should be possible to start newer version on
> > data
> > > > > files
> > > > > > > > > created by the previous version
> > > > > > > > > 2.2) Thin client forward and backward compatibility
> *SHOULD*
> > be
> > > > > > > > maintained
> > > > > > > > > between two consecutive minor releases. If compatibility
> > cannot
> > > > be
> > > > > > > > > maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
> > > > > > > > > 2.3) JDBC and ODBC forward and backward compatibility
> > *SHOULD*
> > > be
> > > > > > > > > maintained between two consecutive minor releases. If
> > > > compatibility
> > > > > > > > cannot
> > > > > > > > > be maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 3) Tests
> > > > > > > > > 3.1) New functionality *MUST* be covered with unit tests
> for
> > > both
> > > > > > > > positive
> > > > > > > > > and negative use cases
> > > > > > > > > 3.2) All test suites *MUST* be run before merge to
> > > master..There
> > > > > > *MUST*
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > no new test failures
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 4) Code style *MUST* be followed as per Ignite's Coding
> > > > Guidelines
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Vladimir.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [1] https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > > > > vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi Dmitry,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Yes, I'll do that in the nearest days.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <
> > > > > > > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> Igniters, the idea was related to small refactorings
> > > > co-located
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > main
> > > > > > > > > >> change.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Main change itself indicates that existing code did not
> > meet
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > criteria
> > > > > > > > > >> of practice. Approving of standalone refactorings
> instead
> > > > > > > contradicts
> > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > >> principle don't touch if it works. So I still like idea
> of
> > > > > > > co-located
> > > > > > > > > >> changes improving code, javadocs, style, etc.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> But let's not argue about this point now, let's
> summarize
> > > the
> > > > > > > > undisputed
> > > > > > > > > >> points and add it to the wiki. Vladimir, would you
> please
> > do
> > > > it?
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> ср, 25 апр. 2018 г. в 16:42, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > nizhikov@apache.org
> > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > I agree with Vova.
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > Don't fix if it works!
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > If you 100% sure then it a useful addition to the
> > product
> > > -
> > > > > just
> > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > >> > separate ticket.
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > В Ср, 25/04/2018 в 11:44 +0300, Vladimir Ozerov пишет:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > Guys,
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > The problem with in-place refactorings is that you
> > > > increase
> > > > > > > > affected
> > > > > > > > > >> > scope.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > It is not uncommon to break compatibility or public
> > > > > contracts
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > >> even
> > > > > > > > > >> > > minor things. E.g. recently we decided drop
> org.jsr166
> > > > > package
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > >> favor
> > > > > > > > > >> > of
> > > > > > > > > >> > > Java 8 classes. Innocent change. Result - broken
> > > storage.
> > > > > > > Another
> > > > > > > > > >> problem
> > > > > > > > > >> > > is conflicts. It is not uncommon to have long-lived
> > > > branches
> > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > >> > need
> > > > > > > > > >> > > to merge with master over and over again. And a lot
> of
> > > > > > > > refactorings
> > > > > > > > > >> cause
> > > > > > > > > >> > > conflicts. It is much easier to resolve them if you
> > know
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > logic
> > > > > > > > > >> was
> > > > > > > > > >> > not
> > > > > > > > > >> > > affected as opposed to cases when you need to
> resolve
> > > both
> > > > > > > renames
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > >> > > method extractions along with business-logic
> changes.
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > I'd like to repeat - if you have a time for
> > refactoring
> > > > then
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > >> > definitely
> > > > > > > > > >> > > have a time to extract these changes to separate PR
> > and
> > > > > > submit a
> > > > > > > > > >> separate
> > > > > > > > > >> > > ticket. I am quite understand what "low priority" do
> > you
> > > > > mean
> > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > >> do
> > > > > > > > > >> > > refactorings on your own.
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 10:52 PM, Andrey Kuznetsov <
> > > > > > > > > stkuzma@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > +1.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > Once again, I beg for "small refactoring
> permission"
> > > in
> > > > a
> > > > > > > > > checklist.
> > > > > > > > > >> > As of
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > today, separate tickets for small refactorings has
> > > > lowest
> > > > > > > > > priority,
> > > > > > > > > >> > since
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > they neither fix any flaw nor add new
> functionality.
> > > > Also,
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> > attempts to
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > make issue-related code safer / cleaner / more
> > > readable
> > > > in
> > > > > > > > "real"
> > > > > > > > > >> pull
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > requests are typically rejected, since they
> > contradict
> > > > our
> > > > > > > > current
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > guidelines.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > I understand this will require a bit more effort
> > from
> > > > > > > > > >> > committer/maintainer,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > but otherwise we will get constantly degrading
> code
> > > > > quality.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > 2018-04-24 18:52 GMT+03:00 Eduard Shangareev <
> > > > > > > > > >> > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Vladimir,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > I am not talking about massive/sophisticated
> > > > > refactoring.
> > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > >> > believe
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > that ask to extract some methods should be OK to
> > do
> > > > > > without
> > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > >> extra
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > ticket.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > A checklist shouldn't be necessarily a set of
> > > certain
> > > > > > rules
> > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > >> also
> > > > > > > > > >> > it
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > could include suggestion and reminders.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 6:39 PM, Vladimir
> Ozerov <
> > > > > > > > > >> > vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Ed,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Refactoring is a separate task. If you would
> > like
> > > to
> > > > > > > rework
> > > > > > > > > >> > exchange
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > future
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > - please do this in a ticket "Refactor
> exchange
> > > > task",
> > > > > > > > nobody
> > > > > > > > > >> would
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > against
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > this. This is just a matter of creating
> separate
> > > > > ticket
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > >> > separate
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > PR.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > one have a time for refactoring, it should not
> > be
> > > a
> > > > > > > problem
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > >> > him to
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > spend several minutes on JIRA and GitHub.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > As far as documentation - what you describe is
> > > > normal
> > > > > > > review
> > > > > > > > > >> > process,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > reviewer might want to ask contributor to fix
> > > > > something.
> > > > > > > > > >> Checklist
> > > > > > > > > >> > is a
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > different thing - this is a set of rules which
> > > must
> > > > be
> > > > > > > > > followed
> > > > > > > > > >> by
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > anyone.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > I do not understand how you can define
> > > documentation
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > >> > checklist.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Same problem with logging - what is "enough"?
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Eduard
> > > Shangareev <
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I don't understand why you are so against
> > > > > refactoring.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Code already smells like hell. Methods 200+
> > line
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > normal.
> > > > > > > > > >> > Exchange
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > future
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > is asking to be separated on several one.
> > > > > Transaction
> > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > > >> could
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > understand
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > few people.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > If we separate refactoring from development
> it
> > > > would
> > > > > > > mean
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > >> > no one
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > do it.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > 2) Documentation.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Everything which was asked by reviewers to
> > > clarify
> > > > > > idea
> > > > > > > > > >> should be
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > reflected
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > in the code.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > 3) Logging.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Logging should be enough to troubleshoot the
> > > > problem
> > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > >> someone
> > > > > > > > > >> > comes
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > user-list with an issue in the code.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 7:06 PM, Dmitry
> > Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > +1 to idea of checklist.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > +1 to refactoring and documenting code
> > related
> > > > to
> > > > > > > ticket
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > >> > +/-20
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > LOC
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > least.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > If we start to do it as part of our
> regular
> > > > > > > > contribution,
> > > > > > > > > >> code
> > > > > > > > > >> > will
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > better, it would became common practice
> and
> > > part
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > Apache
> > > > > > > > > >> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > development culure.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > If we will hope we will have free time to
> > > submit
> > > > > > > > separate
> > > > > > > > > >> patch
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > someday
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > have patience to complete patch-submission
> > > > > process,
> > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > > >> will
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > remain
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > undocumented and poor-readable.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Sincerely,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > пт, 20 апр. 2018 г. в 18:56, Александр
> > > > Меньшиков <
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > sharplermc@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 4) Metrics.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > partially +1
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > It makes sense to have some minimal code
> > > > > coverage
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > >> > code in
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > PR.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IMHO.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Also, we can limit the cyclomatic
> > complexity
> > > > of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > >> code
> > > > > > > > > >> > in
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > PR
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > too.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 6) Refactoring
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > -1
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > I understand why people want to refactor
> > old
> > > > > code.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > But I think refactoring should be
> always a
> > > > > > separate
> > > > > > > > > task.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > And it's better to remove all
> refactoring
> > > from
> > > > > PR,
> > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > >> > not
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > sense
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > the issue.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 16:54 GMT+03:00 Andrey
> > Kuznetsov
> > > <
> > > > > > > > > >> > stkuzma@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > What about adding the following item
> to
> > > the
> > > > > > > > checklist:
> > > > > > > > > >> > when the
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > change
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > adds
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > new functionality, then unit tests
> > should
> > > > also
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > >> > provided, if
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > technically possible?
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > As for refactorings, in fact they are
> > > > strongly
> > > > > > > > > >> discouraged
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > today
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > unclear reason. Let's permit to make
> > > > > > refactorings
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > checklist
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > being
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > discussed. (Of cource, refactoring
> > should
> > > > > relate
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >> problem
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > being
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > solved.)
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 16:16 GMT+03:00 Vladimir
> > > Ozerov <
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > vozerov@gridgain.com
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ed,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately some of these points
> are
> > > not
> > > > > > good
> > > > > > > > > >> > candidates
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > for
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > checklist because of these:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > - It must be clear and disallow
> > > *multiple
> > > > > > > > > >> > interpretations*
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > - It must be *lightweight*,
> otherwise
> > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > >> development
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > would
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > become a
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > nightmare
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > We cannot have "nice to have" points
> > > here.
> > > > > > > > Checklist
> > > > > > > > > >> > should
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > answer
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > question "is ticket eligible to be
> > > > merged?"
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Code style.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > +1
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  2) Documentation
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -1, it is impossible to define what
> is
> > > > > > > > > >> > "well-documented". A
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > piece
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > could be obvious for one
> contributor,
> > > and
> > > > > > > > > non-obvious
> > > > > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > another.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > In
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > case this is not a blocker for
> merge.
> > > > > Instead,
> > > > > > > > > during
> > > > > > > > > >> > review
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > ask
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > implementer to add more docs, but it
> > > > cannot
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > forced.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  3) Logging
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -1, same problem - what is "enough
> > > > > logging?".
> > > > > > > > Enough
> > > > > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > whom?
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > How
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > understand whether it is enough or
> > not?
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  4) Metrics
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -1, no clear boundaries, and
> decision
> > on
> > > > > > whether
> > > > > > > > > >> metrics
> > > > > > > > > >> > are
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > added
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > not should be performed during
> design
> > > > phase.
> > > > > > As
> > > > > > > > > >> before,
> > > > > > > > > >> > it is
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > perfectly
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > valid to ask contributor to add
> > metrics
> > > > with
> > > > > > > clear
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > why,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > this is not part of the checklist.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5) TC status
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > +1, already mentioned
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  6) Refactoring
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Strong -1. OOP is a slippery slope,
> > > there
> > > > > are
> > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > good
> > > > > > > > > >> > and bad
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > receipts
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > all cases, hence it cannot be used
> in
> > a
> > > > > > > checklist.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > We can borrow useful rules from p.2,
> > p.3
> > > > and
> > > > > > p.4
> > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > >> you
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > clear
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > definitions on how to measure them.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Vladimir.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:50 PM,
> > Eduard
> > > > > > > > Shangareev <
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Also, I want to add some technical
> > > > > > > requirement.
> > > > > > > > > >> Let's
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > discuss
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > them.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Code style.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The code needs to be formatted
> > > according
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > coding
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > guidelines
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/
> > > > > > confluence/display/IGNITE/
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Coding+Guidelines
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > code must not contain TODOs
> without
> > a
> > > > > ticket
> > > > > > > > > >> reference.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > It is highly recommended to make
> > major
> > > > > > > > formatting
> > > > > > > > > >> > changes
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > in
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > existing
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > as a separate commit, to make
> review
> > > > > process
> > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > practical.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Documentation.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Added code should be
> > well-documented.
> > > > Any
> > > > > > > > methods
> > > > > > > > > >> that
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > raise
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > questions
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > regarding their code flow,
> > invariants,
> > > > > > > > > >> synchronization,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > etc.,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > must
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > documented with comprehensive
> > javadoc.
> > > > Any
> > > > > > > > > reviewer
> > > > > > > > > >> can
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > request
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > particular added method be
> > documented.
> > > > > Also,
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > is a
> > > > > > > > > >> > good
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > practice
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > document old code in a 10-20 lines
> > > > region
> > > > > > > around
> > > > > > > > > >> > changed
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > code.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 3) Logging.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Make sure that there are enough
> > > logging
> > > > > > added
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > >> every
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > category
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > possible diagnostic in field.
> Check
> > > that
> > > > > > > logging
> > > > > > > > > >> > messages
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > are
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > properly
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > spelled.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 4) Metrics.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Are there any metrics that need to
> > be
> > > > > > exposed
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >> user?
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 5) TC status.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Recheck that there are no new
> > failing
> > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 6) Refactoring.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The code should be better than
> > before:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - extract method from big one;
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - do anything else to make code
> > > > clearer
> > > > > > > > (don't
> > > > > > > > > >> > forget
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    OOP-practise, replace if-else
> > hell
> > > > with
> > > > > > > > > >> inheritance
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - split refactoring (renaming,
> > code
> > > > > > format)
> > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > >> > actual
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    separate commit
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:23 PM,
> > > Eduard
> > > > > > > > > Shangareev <
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, guys.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that we should update
> > > > > > maintainers
> > > > > > > > list
> > > > > > > > > >> > before
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > adding
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > review
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > requirement.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > There should not be the
> situation
> > > when
> > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > >> only
> > > > > > > > > >> > one
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > contributor
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > is responsible for a component.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > We already have issues with
> review
> > > > speed
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > >> response
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > time.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 2:17 PM,
> > > Anton
> > > > > > > > > Vinogradov
> > > > > > > > > >> <
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vova,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Everything you described sound
> > > good
> > > > to
> > > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to propose to create
> > > > special
> > > > > > page
> > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > AI
> > > > > > > > > >> > Wiki
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > describe
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > checklist.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case we'll find something
> > > should
> > > > be
> > > > > > > > > >> > changed/improved
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > it
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > update the page.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 0:53 GMT+03:00
> > Nikolay
> > > > > > Izhikov
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > nizhikov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Vladimir.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for seting up this
> > > > > > discussion.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As we discussed, I think an
> > > > > important
> > > > > > > part
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > >> > this
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > check
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > list
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > compatibility rules.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * What should be backward
> > > > > compatible?
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * How should we maintain it?
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) If ticket changes
> public
> > > API
> > > > or
> > > > > > > > > existing
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > behavior,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > least
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > two
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commiters should approve the
> > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can learn from other open
> > > > source
> > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > experience.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Apache Kafka [1], for
> example,
> > > > > > requires
> > > > > > > > > >> KIP(kafka
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > improvement
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > proposal)
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for *every* major change.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Major change definition
> > includes
> > > > > > public
> > > > > > > > API.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> https://cwiki.apache.org/
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > confluence/display/KAFKA/
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kafka+Improvement+Proposals
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > В Чт, 19/04/2018 в 23:00
> > +0300,
> > > > > > Vladimir
> > > > > > > > > >> Ozerov
> > > > > > > > > >> > пишет:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's glad to see our
> > community
> > > > > > becomes
> > > > > > > > > >> larger
> > > > > > > > > >> > every
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > day.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > grows
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes more and more
> > > difficult
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > manage
> > > > > > > > > >> > review and
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > processes
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > keep quality of our
> > decisions
> > > at
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > proper
> > > > > > > > > >> > level.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > More
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > contributors,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commits, more components
> > > > > interlinked
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > >> each
> > > > > > > > > >> > other
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > subtle
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > ways.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to propose to
> > > > setup a
> > > > > > > > formal
> > > > > > > > > >> > review
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > checklist.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be a
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > set of actions every
> > reviewer
> > > > > needs
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > check
> > > > > > > > > >> > before
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > approving
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of a
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > certain feature. Passing
> the
> > > > > > checklist
> > > > > > > > > >> would be
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > *necessary
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sufficient* phase before
> > > commit
> > > > > > could
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > >> added
> > > > > > > > > >> > to
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > main
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > branch.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > checklist would help us to
> > > > detect
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > lot
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > >> > common
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > problems
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > broken
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests or bad UX earlier,
> and
> > > > would
> > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > >> > contributors
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > lead
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > their
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > pull
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > requests to merge.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hallmarks of a good
> > checklist:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - It must be followed be
> > > > everyone
> > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > >> > exceptions
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - It must be clear and
> > > disallow
> > > > > > > multiple
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > interpretations
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - It must be lightweight,
> > > > > otherwise
> > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > development
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > become
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nightmare
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - It must be non-blocking,
> > > i.e.
> > > > > > > > > >> inacessibility
> > > > > > > > > >> > of a
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > single
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > contributor
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should not block ticket
> > > progress
> > > > > > > > forever.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please let me know if you
> > > think
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > idea
> > > > > > > > > >> makes
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > sense.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > agree
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > let's start defining
> action
> > > > items
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> > checklist.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > My
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 2
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > cents:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) All unit tests pass on
> TC
> > > > > without
> > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > >> > failures
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) If ticket targets
> > specific
> > > > > > > component,
> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > >> > should
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > be
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > reviewed
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > component's maintainer*
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) If ticket changes
> public
> > > API
> > > > or
> > > > > > > > > existing
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > behavior,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > least
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > two
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commiters should approve
> the
> > > > > changes
> > > > > > > **
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vladimir.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * TBD: Review component
> list
> > > and
> > > > > > > define
> > > > > > > > > >> > maintainers;
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > define
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > do if
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > maintainer is unavailable
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ** TBD: Define what is
> > "public
> > > > > API"
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >   Andrey Kuznetsov.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > --
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >   Andrey Kuznetsov.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > >   Andrey Kuznetsov.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > >   Andrey Kuznetsov.
> > >
> >
>

Re: Ticket review checklist

[Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>]

Dmitry,

Could you please formulate this requirement?

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 5:06 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <dp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Vladimir,
>
> I've replied in separate thread.
>
> I would like to keep requirement of Green TC instead of separation to
> new/old test failures.
>
> Once you allow just one test failure, it would be more failures after some
> time.
>
> Sincererly,
> Dmitriy Pavlov
>
> ср, 23 мая 2018 г. в 17:02, Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>:
>
> > Igniters,
> >
> > I created review checklist on WIKI [1] and also fixed related pages (e.g.
> > "How To Contribute"). Please let me know if you have any comments before
> I
> > go with public announce.
> >
> > Vladimir.
> >
> > [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Review+Checklist
> >
> > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:10 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Ilya,
> > >
> > > We define that exception messages *SHOULD* have clear explanation on
> what
> > > is wrong. *SHOULD* mean that the rule should be followed unless there
> is
> > a
> > > reason not to follow. In your case you refer to some unexpected
> behavior.
> > > I.e. an exceptional situation developer is not aware of. In this case
> for
> > > sure we cannot force contributor to explain what is wrong, because,
> well,
> > > we don't know. This is why we relaxed the rule from *MUST* to *SHOULD*.
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Ilya Kasnacheev <
> > > ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I don't think I quite understand how exception explanations should
> work.
> > >>
> > >> Imagine we have the following exception:
> > >>
> > >> // At least RuntimeException can be thrown by the code above when
> > >> GridCacheContext is cleaned and there is
> > >> // an attempt to use cleaned resources.
> > >> U.error(log, "Unexpected exception during cache update", e);
> > >>
> > >> I mean, we genuinely don't know what happened here.
> > >>
> > >> Under new rules, what kind of "workaround" would that exception
> suggest?
> > >> "Try turning it off and then back on"?
> > >> What explanation how to resolve this exception can we offer? "Please
> > write
> > >> to dev@apache.ignite.org or to Apache JIRA, and then wait for a
> release
> > >> with fix?"
> > >>
> > >> I'm really confused how we can implement 1.6 and 1.7 when dealing with
> > >> messy real-world code.
> > >>
> > >> Regards,
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Ilya Kasnacheev
> > >>
> > >> 2018-05-10 11:39 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>:
> > >>
> > >> > Andrey, Anton, Alex
> > >> >
> > >> > Agree, *SHOULD* is more appropriate here.
> > >> >
> > >> > Please see latest version below. Does anyone want to add or change
> > >> > something? Let's wait for several days for more feedback and then
> > >> publish
> > >> > and announce this list. Note that it would not be carved in stone
> and
> > we
> > >> > will be able to change it at any time if needed.
> > >> >
> > >> > 1) API
> > >> > 1.1) API compatibility *MUST* be maintained between minor releases.
> Do
> > >> not
> > >> > remove existing methods or change their signatures, deprecate them
> > >> instead
> > >> > 1.2) Default behaviour "SHOULD NOT* be changed between minor
> releases,
> > >> > unless absolutely needed. If change is made, it *MUST* be described
> in
> > >> > "Migration Guide"
> > >> > 1.3) New operation *MUST* be well-documented in code (javadoc,
> > >> dotnetdoc):
> > >> > documentation must contain method's purpose, description of
> parameters
> > >> and
> > >> > how their values affect the outcome, description of return value and
> > >> it's
> > >> > default, behavior in negative cases, interaction with other
> operations
> > >> and
> > >> > components
> > >> > 1.4) API parity between Java and .NET platforms *SHOULD* be
> maintained
> > >> when
> > >> > operation makes sense on both platforms. If method cannot be
> > >> implemented in
> > >> > a platform immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be created and linked
> > to
> > >> > current ticket
> > >> > 1.5) API parity between thin clients (Java, .NET) *SHOULD* be
> > maintained
> > >> > when operation makes sense on several clients. If method cannot be
> > >> > implemented in a client immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be
> created
> > >> and
> > >> > linked to current ticket
> > >> > 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user **SHOULD** have explanation how
> > to
> > >> > resolve, workaround or debug an error
> > >> >
> > >> > 2) Compatibility
> > >> > 2.1) Persistence backward compatibility *MUST* be maintained between
> > >> minor
> > >> > releases. It should be possible to start newer version on data files
> > >> > created by the previous version
> > >> > 2.2) Thin client forward and backward compatibility *SHOULD* be
> > >> maintained
> > >> > between two consecutive minor releases. If compatibility cannot be
> > >> > maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
> > >> > 2.3) JDBC and ODBC forward and backward compatibility *SHOULD* be
> > >> > maintained between two consecutive minor releases. If compatibility
> > >> cannot
> > >> > be maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
> > >> >
> > >> > 3) Tests
> > >> > 3.1) New functionality *MUST* be covered with unit tests for both
> > >> positive
> > >> > and negative use cases
> > >> > 3.2) All test suites *MUST* be run before merge to master..There
> > *MUST*
> > >> be
> > >> > no new test failures
> > >> >
> > >> > 4) Code style *MUST* be followed as per Ignite's Coding Guidelines
> > >> >
> > >> > Vladimir.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 1:05 PM, Andrey Kuznetsov <stkuzma@gmail.com
> >
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Anton,
> > >> > >
> > >> > > I agree, *MUST* for exception reasons and *SHOULD* for ways of
> > >> resolution
> > >> > > sound clearer.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > 2018-05-08 12:56 GMT+03:00 Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > Andrey,
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > How about
> > >> > > > 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user *MUST* have explanation of
> > >> > > workaround
> > >> > > > and contain original error.
> > >> > > > All exceptions thrown to a user *SHOULD* have explanation how to
> > >> > resolve
> > >> > > if
> > >> > > > possible.
> > >> > > > ?
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > вт, 8 мая 2018 г. в 12:26, Andrey Kuznetsov <stkuzma@gmail.com
> >:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > Vladimir, checklist looks pleasant enough for me.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > I'd like to suggest one minor change. In 1.6 *MUST* seems to
> be
> > >> too
> > >> > > > strict,
> > >> > > > > *SHOULD* would be enough. It can be frustrating for API user
> if
> > I
> > >> > > explain
> > >> > > > > how to fix NPEs in a trivial way, for example.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > 2018-05-08 11:34 GMT+03:00 Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Alex,
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > It is not sounds like that, obviously.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Tests should cover all negative and positive cases.
> > >> > > > > > You should add enough tests to cover all cases.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Sometimes one test can cover more than one case, so two
> tests
> > >> *CAN*
> > >> > > > > > partially check same things.
> > >> > > > > > In case some cases already covered you should not create
> > >> > duplicates.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > вт, 8 мая 2018 г. в 10:19, Александр Меньшиков <
> > >> > sharplermc@gmail.com
> > >> > > >:
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > Vladimir, the 3.1 is a bit unclear for me. Which code
> > >> coverage is
> > >> > > > > > > acceptable? Now it sounds like two tests are enough (one
> for
> > >> > > positive
> > >> > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > > one for negative cases).
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > 2018-05-07 23:09 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > >> > > dsetrakyan@apache.org
> > >> > > > >:
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > Is this list on the Wiki?
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 7:26 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > >> > > > > vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > >> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > This is the checklist I have at the moment. Please let
> > me
> > >> > know
> > >> > > if
> > >> > > > > you
> > >> > > > > > > > have
> > >> > > > > > > > > any comments on existing items, or want to add or
> remove
> > >> > > > anything.
> > >> > > > > It
> > >> > > > > > > > looks
> > >> > > > > > > > > like we may have not only strict rules, but *nice to
> > have*
> > >> > > points
> > >> > > > > > here
> > >> > > > > > > as
> > >> > > > > > > > > well with help of *MUST*, *SHOULD* and *MAY* words as
> > per
> > >> > > RFC2119
> > >> > > > > > [1].
> > >> > > > > > > So
> > >> > > > > > > > > please feel free to suggest optional items as well.
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > 1) API
> > >> > > > > > > > > 1.1) API compatibility *MUST* be maintained between
> > minor
> > >> > > > releases.
> > >> > > > > > Do
> > >> > > > > > > > not
> > >> > > > > > > > > remove existing methods or change their signatures,
> > >> deprecate
> > >> > > > them
> > >> > > > > > > > instead
> > >> > > > > > > > > 1.2) Default behaviour "SHOULD NOT* be changed between
> > >> minor
> > >> > > > > > releases,
> > >> > > > > > > > > unless absolutely needed. If change is made, it *MUST*
> > be
> > >> > > > described
> > >> > > > > > in
> > >> > > > > > > > > "Migration Guide"
> > >> > > > > > > > > 1.3) New operation *MUST* be well-documented in code
> > >> > (javadoc,
> > >> > > > > > > > dotnetdoc):
> > >> > > > > > > > > documentation must contain method's purpose,
> description
> > >> of
> > >> > > > > > parameters
> > >> > > > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > > > > how their values affect the outcome, description of
> > return
> > >> > > value
> > >> > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > > it's
> > >> > > > > > > > > default, behavior in negative cases, interaction with
> > >> other
> > >> > > > > > operations
> > >> > > > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > > > > components
> > >> > > > > > > > > 1.4) API parity between Java and .NET platforms
> *SHOULD*
> > >> be
> > >> > > > > > maintained
> > >> > > > > > > > when
> > >> > > > > > > > > operation makes sense on both platforms. If method
> > cannot
> > >> be
> > >> > > > > > > implemented
> > >> > > > > > > > in
> > >> > > > > > > > > a platform immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be
> > created
> > >> and
> > >> > > > > linked
> > >> > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > > > > current ticket
> > >> > > > > > > > > 1.5) API parity between thin clients (Java, .NET)
> > >> *SHOULD* be
> > >> > > > > > > maintained
> > >> > > > > > > > > when operation makes sense on several clients. If
> method
> > >> > cannot
> > >> > > > be
> > >> > > > > > > > > implemented in a client immediately, new JIRA ticket
> > >> *MUST*
> > >> > be
> > >> > > > > > created
> > >> > > > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > > > > linked to current ticket
> > >> > > > > > > > > 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user *MUST* have
> > >> explanation
> > >> > > how
> > >> > > > to
> > >> > > > > > > > > resolve, workaround or debug an error
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > 2) Compatibility
> > >> > > > > > > > > 2.1) Persistence backward compatibility *MUST* be
> > >> maintained
> > >> > > > > between
> > >> > > > > > > > minor
> > >> > > > > > > > > releases. It should be possible to start newer version
> > on
> > >> > data
> > >> > > > > files
> > >> > > > > > > > > created by the previous version
> > >> > > > > > > > > 2.2) Thin client forward and backward compatibility
> > >> *SHOULD*
> > >> > be
> > >> > > > > > > > maintained
> > >> > > > > > > > > between two consecutive minor releases. If
> compatibility
> > >> > cannot
> > >> > > > be
> > >> > > > > > > > > maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
> > >> > > > > > > > > 2.3) JDBC and ODBC forward and backward compatibility
> > >> > *SHOULD*
> > >> > > be
> > >> > > > > > > > > maintained between two consecutive minor releases. If
> > >> > > > compatibility
> > >> > > > > > > > cannot
> > >> > > > > > > > > be maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration
> > Guide"
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > 3) Tests
> > >> > > > > > > > > 3.1) New functionality *MUST* be covered with unit
> tests
> > >> for
> > >> > > both
> > >> > > > > > > > positive
> > >> > > > > > > > > and negative use cases
> > >> > > > > > > > > 3.2) All test suites *MUST* be run before merge to
> > >> > > master..There
> > >> > > > > > *MUST*
> > >> > > > > > > > be
> > >> > > > > > > > > no new test failures
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > 4) Code style *MUST* be followed as per Ignite's
> Coding
> > >> > > > Guidelines
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > Vladimir.
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > [1] https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > >> > > > > > vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > Hi Dmitry,
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > Yes, I'll do that in the nearest days.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <
> > >> > > > > > > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> > >> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> Igniters, the idea was related to small
> refactorings
> > >> > > > co-located
> > >> > > > > > with
> > >> > > > > > > > > main
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> change.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> Main change itself indicates that existing code did
> > not
> > >> > meet
> > >> > > > the
> > >> > > > > > > > > criteria
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> of practice. Approving of standalone refactorings
> > >> instead
> > >> > > > > > > contradicts
> > >> > > > > > > > > with
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> principle don't touch if it works. So I still like
> > >> idea of
> > >> > > > > > > co-located
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> changes improving code, javadocs, style, etc.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> But let's not argue about this point now, let's
> > >> summarize
> > >> > > the
> > >> > > > > > > > undisputed
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> points and add it to the wiki. Vladimir, would you
> > >> please
> > >> > do
> > >> > > > it?
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> ср, 25 апр. 2018 г. в 16:42, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > >> > > > > nizhikov@apache.org
> > >> > > > > > >:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > Igniters,
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > I agree with Vova.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > Don't fix if it works!
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > If you 100% sure then it a useful addition to the
> > >> > product
> > >> > > -
> > >> > > > > just
> > >> > > > > > > > make
> > >> > > > > > > > > a
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > separate ticket.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > В Ср, 25/04/2018 в 11:44 +0300, Vladimir Ozerov
> > >> пишет:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > Guys,
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > The problem with in-place refactorings is that
> > you
> > >> > > > increase
> > >> > > > > > > > affected
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > scope.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > It is not uncommon to break compatibility or
> > public
> > >> > > > > contracts
> > >> > > > > > > with
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> even
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > minor things. E.g. recently we decided drop
> > >> org.jsr166
> > >> > > > > package
> > >> > > > > > > in
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> favor
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > of
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > Java 8 classes. Innocent change. Result -
> broken
> > >> > > storage.
> > >> > > > > > > Another
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> problem
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > is conflicts. It is not uncommon to have
> > long-lived
> > >> > > > branches
> > >> > > > > > > which
> > >> > > > > > > > > we
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > need
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > to merge with master over and over again. And a
> > >> lot of
> > >> > > > > > > > refactorings
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> cause
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > conflicts. It is much easier to resolve them if
> > you
> > >> > know
> > >> > > > > that
> > >> > > > > > > > logic
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> was
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > not
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > affected as opposed to cases when you need to
> > >> resolve
> > >> > > both
> > >> > > > > > > renames
> > >> > > > > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > method extractions along with business-logic
> > >> changes.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > I'd like to repeat - if you have a time for
> > >> > refactoring
> > >> > > > then
> > >> > > > > > you
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > definitely
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > have a time to extract these changes to
> separate
> > PR
> > >> > and
> > >> > > > > > submit a
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> separate
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > ticket. I am quite understand what "low
> priority"
> > >> do
> > >> > you
> > >> > > > > mean
> > >> > > > > > if
> > >> > > > > > > > you
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> do
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > refactorings on your own.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 10:52 PM, Andrey
> > Kuznetsov
> > >> <
> > >> > > > > > > > > stkuzma@gmail.com
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > +1.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > Once again, I beg for "small refactoring
> > >> permission"
> > >> > > in
> > >> > > > a
> > >> > > > > > > > > checklist.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > As of
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > today, separate tickets for small
> refactorings
> > >> has
> > >> > > > lowest
> > >> > > > > > > > > priority,
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > since
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > they neither fix any flaw nor add new
> > >> functionality.
> > >> > > > Also,
> > >> > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > attempts to
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > make issue-related code safer / cleaner /
> more
> > >> > > readable
> > >> > > > in
> > >> > > > > > > > "real"
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> pull
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > requests are typically rejected, since they
> > >> > contradict
> > >> > > > our
> > >> > > > > > > > current
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > guidelines.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > I understand this will require a bit more
> > effort
> > >> > from
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > committer/maintainer,
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > but otherwise we will get constantly
> degrading
> > >> code
> > >> > > > > quality.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > 2018-04-24 18:52 GMT+03:00 Eduard Shangareev
> <
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > :
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Vladimir,
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > I am not talking about
> massive/sophisticated
> > >> > > > > refactoring.
> > >> > > > > > > But
> > >> > > > > > > > I
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > believe
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > that ask to extract some methods should be
> OK
> > >> to
> > >> > do
> > >> > > > > > without
> > >> > > > > > > an
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> extra
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > ticket.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > A checklist shouldn't be necessarily a set
> of
> > >> > > certain
> > >> > > > > > rules
> > >> > > > > > > > but
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> also
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > it
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > could include suggestion and reminders.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 6:39 PM, Vladimir
> > >> Ozerov <
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Ed,
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Refactoring is a separate task. If you
> > would
> > >> > like
> > >> > > to
> > >> > > > > > > rework
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > exchange
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > future
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > - please do this in a ticket "Refactor
> > >> exchange
> > >> > > > task",
> > >> > > > > > > > nobody
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> would
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > against
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > this. This is just a matter of creating
> > >> separate
> > >> > > > > ticket
> > >> > > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > separate
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > PR.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > If
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > one have a time for refactoring, it
> should
> > >> not
> > >> > be
> > >> > > a
> > >> > > > > > > problem
> > >> > > > > > > > > for
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > him to
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > spend several minutes on JIRA and GitHub.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > As far as documentation - what you
> describe
> > >> is
> > >> > > > normal
> > >> > > > > > > review
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > process,
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > when
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > reviewer might want to ask contributor to
> > fix
> > >> > > > > something.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> Checklist
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > is a
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > different thing - this is a set of rules
> > >> which
> > >> > > must
> > >> > > > be
> > >> > > > > > > > > followed
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> by
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > anyone.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > I do not understand how you can define
> > >> > > documentation
> > >> > > > > in
> > >> > > > > > > this
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > checklist.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Same problem with logging - what is
> > "enough"?
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Eduard
> > >> > > Shangareev <
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Igniters,
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I don't understand why you are so
> against
> > >> > > > > refactoring.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Code already smells like hell. Methods
> > 200+
> > >> > line
> > >> > > > is
> > >> > > > > > > > normal.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > Exchange
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > future
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > is asking to be separated on several
> one.
> > >> > > > > Transaction
> > >> > > > > > > code
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> could
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > understand
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > few people.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > If we separate refactoring from
> > >> development it
> > >> > > > would
> > >> > > > > > > mean
> > >> > > > > > > > > that
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > no one
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > will
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > do it.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > 2) Documentation.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Everything which was asked by reviewers
> > to
> > >> > > clarify
> > >> > > > > > idea
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> should be
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > reflected
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > in the code.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > 3) Logging.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Logging should be enough to
> troubleshoot
> > >> the
> > >> > > > problem
> > >> > > > > > if
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> someone
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > comes
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > user-list with an issue in the code.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 7:06 PM, Dmitry
> > >> > Pavlov <
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > +1 to idea of checklist.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > +1 to refactoring and documenting
> code
> > >> > related
> > >> > > > to
> > >> > > > > > > ticket
> > >> > > > > > > > > in
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > +/-20
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > LOC
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > at
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > least.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > If we start to do it as part of our
> > >> regular
> > >> > > > > > > > contribution,
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> code
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > will
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > be
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > better, it would became common
> practice
> > >> and
> > >> > > part
> > >> > > > > of
> > >> > > > > > > > Apache
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > Ignite
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > development culure.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > If we will hope we will have free
> time
> > to
> > >> > > submit
> > >> > > > > > > > separate
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> patch
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > someday
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > have patience to complete
> > >> patch-submission
> > >> > > > > process,
> > >> > > > > > > code
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> will
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > remain
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > undocumented and poor-readable.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Sincerely,
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > пт, 20 апр. 2018 г. в 18:56,
> Александр
> > >> > > > Меньшиков <
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > sharplermc@gmail.com
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > :
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 4) Metrics.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > partially +1
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > It makes sense to have some minimal
> > >> code
> > >> > > > > coverage
> > >> > > > > > > for
> > >> > > > > > > > > new
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > code in
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > PR.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IMHO.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Also, we can limit the cyclomatic
> > >> > complexity
> > >> > > > of
> > >> > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > > > new
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> code
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > in
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > PR
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > too.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 6) Refactoring
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > -1
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > I understand why people want to
> > >> refactor
> > >> > old
> > >> > > > > code.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > But I think refactoring should be
> > >> always a
> > >> > > > > > separate
> > >> > > > > > > > > task.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > And it's better to remove all
> > >> refactoring
> > >> > > from
> > >> > > > > PR,
> > >> > > > > > > if
> > >> > > > > > > > > it's
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > not
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > the
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > sense
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > of
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > the issue.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 16:54 GMT+03:00 Andrey
> > >> > Kuznetsov
> > >> > > <
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > stkuzma@gmail.com>:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > What about adding the following
> > item
> > >> to
> > >> > > the
> > >> > > > > > > > checklist:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > when the
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > change
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > adds
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > new functionality, then unit
> tests
> > >> > should
> > >> > > > also
> > >> > > > > > be
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > provided, if
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > it's
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > technically possible?
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > As for refactorings, in fact they
> > are
> > >> > > > strongly
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> discouraged
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > today
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > for
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > some
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > unclear reason. Let's permit to
> > make
> > >> > > > > > refactorings
> > >> > > > > > > in
> > >> > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > checklist
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > being
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > discussed. (Of cource,
> refactoring
> > >> > should
> > >> > > > > relate
> > >> > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> problem
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > being
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > solved.)
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 16:16 GMT+03:00
> Vladimir
> > >> > > Ozerov <
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > vozerov@gridgain.com
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > :
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ed,
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately some of these
> > points
> > >> are
> > >> > > not
> > >> > > > > > good
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > candidates
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > for
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > checklist because of these:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > - It must be clear and disallow
> > >> > > *multiple
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > interpretations*
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > - It must be *lightweight*,
> > >> otherwise
> > >> > > > Ignite
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> development
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > would
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > become a
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > nightmare
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > We cannot have "nice to have"
> > >> points
> > >> > > here.
> > >> > > > > > > > Checklist
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > should
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > answer
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > question "is ticket eligible to
> > be
> > >> > > > merged?"
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Code style.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > +1
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  2) Documentation
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -1, it is impossible to define
> > >> what is
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > "well-documented". A
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > piece
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > of
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > code
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > could be obvious for one
> > >> contributor,
> > >> > > and
> > >> > > > > > > > > non-obvious
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> for
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > another.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > In
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > any
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > case this is not a blocker for
> > >> merge.
> > >> > > > > Instead,
> > >> > > > > > > > > during
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > review
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > one
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > can
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > ask
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > implementer to add more docs,
> but
> > >> it
> > >> > > > cannot
> > >> > > > > be
> > >> > > > > > > > > forced.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  3) Logging
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -1, same problem - what is
> > "enough
> > >> > > > > logging?".
> > >> > > > > > > > Enough
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> for
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > whom?
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > How
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > understand whether it is enough
> > or
> > >> > not?
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  4) Metrics
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -1, no clear boundaries, and
> > >> decision
> > >> > on
> > >> > > > > > whether
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> metrics
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > are
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > to
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > be
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > added
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > or
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > not should be performed during
> > >> design
> > >> > > > phase.
> > >> > > > > > As
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> before,
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > it is
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > perfectly
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > valid to ask contributor to add
> > >> > metrics
> > >> > > > with
> > >> > > > > > > clear
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > explanation
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > why,
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > but
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > this is not part of the
> > checklist.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5) TC status
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > +1, already mentioned
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  6) Refactoring
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Strong -1. OOP is a slippery
> > slope,
> > >> > > there
> > >> > > > > are
> > >> > > > > > no
> > >> > > > > > > > > good
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > and bad
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > receipts
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > for
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > all cases, hence it cannot be
> > used
> > >> in
> > >> > a
> > >> > > > > > > checklist.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > We can borrow useful rules from
> > >> p.2,
> > >> > p.3
> > >> > > > and
> > >> > > > > > p.4
> > >> > > > > > > > if
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> you
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > provide
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > clear
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > definitions on how to measure
> > them.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Vladimir.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:50
> PM,
> > >> > Eduard
> > >> > > > > > > > Shangareev <
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Also, I want to add some
> > >> technical
> > >> > > > > > > requirement.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> Let's
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > discuss
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > them.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Code style.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The code needs to be
> formatted
> > >> > > according
> > >> > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > > > coding
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > guidelines
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/
> > >> > > > > > confluence/display/IGNITE/
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Coding+Guidelines
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > .
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > code must not contain TODOs
> > >> without
> > >> > a
> > >> > > > > ticket
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> reference.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > It is highly recommended to
> > make
> > >> > major
> > >> > > > > > > > formatting
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > changes
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > in
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > existing
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > code
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > as a separate commit, to make
> > >> review
> > >> > > > > process
> > >> > > > > > > > more
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > practical.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Documentation.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Added code should be
> > >> > well-documented.
> > >> > > > Any
> > >> > > > > > > > methods
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> that
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > raise
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > questions
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > regarding their code flow,
> > >> > invariants,
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> synchronization,
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > etc.,
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > must
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > be
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > documented with comprehensive
> > >> > javadoc.
> > >> > > > Any
> > >> > > > > > > > > reviewer
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> can
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > request
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > that
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > a
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > particular added method be
> > >> > documented.
> > >> > > > > Also,
> > >> > > > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > > > > is a
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > good
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > practice
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > document old code in a 10-20
> > >> lines
> > >> > > > region
> > >> > > > > > > around
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > changed
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > code.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 3) Logging.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Make sure that there are
> enough
> > >> > > logging
> > >> > > > > > added
> > >> > > > > > > in
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> every
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > category
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > for
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > possible diagnostic in field.
> > >> Check
> > >> > > that
> > >> > > > > > > logging
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > messages
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > are
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > properly
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > spelled.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 4) Metrics.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Are there any metrics that
> need
> > >> to
> > >> > be
> > >> > > > > > exposed
> > >> > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> user?
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 5) TC status.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Recheck that there are no new
> > >> > failing
> > >> > > > > tests
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 6) Refactoring.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The code should be better
> than
> > >> > before:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - extract method from big
> > one;
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - do anything else to make
> > >> code
> > >> > > > clearer
> > >> > > > > > > > (don't
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > forget
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > about
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > some
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    OOP-practise, replace
> > if-else
> > >> > hell
> > >> > > > with
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> inheritance
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - split refactoring
> > (renaming,
> > >> > code
> > >> > > > > > format)
> > >> > > > > > > > > from
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > actual
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > changes
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > by
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    separate commit
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:23
> > PM,
> > >> > > Eduard
> > >> > > > > > > > > Shangareev <
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, guys.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that we should
> > update
> > >> > > > > > maintainers
> > >> > > > > > > > list
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > before
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > adding
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > this
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > review
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > requirement.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > There should not be the
> > >> situation
> > >> > > when
> > >> > > > > > there
> > >> > > > > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> only
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > one
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > contributor
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > who
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > is responsible for a
> > component.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > We already have issues with
> > >> review
> > >> > > > speed
> > >> > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> response
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > time.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at
> 2:17
> > >> PM,
> > >> > > Anton
> > >> > > > > > > > > Vinogradov
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> <
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vova,
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Everything you described
> > >> sound
> > >> > > good
> > >> > > > to
> > >> > > > > > me.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to propose to
> > create
> > >> > > > special
> > >> > > > > > page
> > >> > > > > > > > at
> > >> > > > > > > > > AI
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > Wiki
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > and
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > describe
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > checklist.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case we'll find
> > something
> > >> > > should
> > >> > > > be
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > changed/improved
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > it
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > will
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > be
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > update the page.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 0:53 GMT+03:00
> > >> > Nikolay
> > >> > > > > > Izhikov
> > >> > > > > > > <
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > nizhikov@apache.org
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > :
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Vladimir.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for seting up
> > >> this
> > >> > > > > > discussion.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As we discussed, I
> think
> > an
> > >> > > > > important
> > >> > > > > > > part
> > >> > > > > > > > > of
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > this
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > check
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > list
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > compatibility rules.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * What should be
> backward
> > >> > > > > compatible?
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * How should we
> maintain
> > >> it?
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) If ticket changes
> > >> public
> > >> > > API
> > >> > > > or
> > >> > > > > > > > > existing
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > behavior,
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > at
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > least
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > two
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commiters should
> approve
> > >> the
> > >> > > > changes
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can learn from other
> > >> open
> > >> > > > source
> > >> > > > > > > > project
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > experience.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Apache Kafka [1], for
> > >> example,
> > >> > > > > > requires
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> KIP(kafka
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > improvement
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > proposal)
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for *every* major
> change.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Major change definition
> > >> > includes
> > >> > > > > > public
> > >> > > > > > > > API.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > confluence/display/KAFKA/
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > Kafka+Improvement+Proposals
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > В Чт, 19/04/2018 в
> 23:00
> > >> > +0300,
> > >> > > > > > Vladimir
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> Ozerov
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > пишет:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's glad to see our
> > >> > community
> > >> > > > > > becomes
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> larger
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > every
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > day.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > But
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > as
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > grows
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes more and more
> > >> > > difficult
> > >> > > > to
> > >> > > > > > > > manage
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > review and
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > merge
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > processes
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > keep quality of our
> > >> > decisions
> > >> > > at
> > >> > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > > > > proper
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > level.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > More
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > contributors,
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commits, more
> > components
> > >> > > > > interlinked
> > >> > > > > > > > with
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> each
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > other
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > in
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > subtle
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > ways.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to
> propose
> > >> to
> > >> > > > setup a
> > >> > > > > > > > formal
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > review
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > checklist.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > This
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be a
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > set of actions every
> > >> > reviewer
> > >> > > > > needs
> > >> > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > > > > check
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > before
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > approving
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > merge
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of a
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > certain feature.
> > Passing
> > >> the
> > >> > > > > > checklist
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> would be
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > *necessary
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > but
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > not
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sufficient* phase
> > before
> > >> > > commit
> > >> > > > > > could
> > >> > > > > > > be
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> added
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > to
> > >> > > > > > > >
>

Re: Ticket review checklist

[Dmitry Pavlov <dp...@gmail.com>]

Hi Vladimir,

I've replied in separate thread.

I would like to keep requirement of Green TC instead of separation to
new/old test failures.

Once you allow just one test failure, it would be more failures after some
time.

Sincererly,
Dmitriy Pavlov

ср, 23 мая 2018 г. в 17:02, Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>:

> Igniters,
>
> I created review checklist on WIKI [1] and also fixed related pages (e.g.
> "How To Contribute"). Please let me know if you have any comments before I
> go with public announce.
>
> Vladimir.
>
> [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Review+Checklist
>
> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:10 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Ilya,
> >
> > We define that exception messages *SHOULD* have clear explanation on what
> > is wrong. *SHOULD* mean that the rule should be followed unless there is
> a
> > reason not to follow. In your case you refer to some unexpected behavior.
> > I.e. an exceptional situation developer is not aware of. In this case for
> > sure we cannot force contributor to explain what is wrong, because, well,
> > we don't know. This is why we relaxed the rule from *MUST* to *SHOULD*.
> >
> > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Ilya Kasnacheev <
> > ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I don't think I quite understand how exception explanations should work.
> >>
> >> Imagine we have the following exception:
> >>
> >> // At least RuntimeException can be thrown by the code above when
> >> GridCacheContext is cleaned and there is
> >> // an attempt to use cleaned resources.
> >> U.error(log, "Unexpected exception during cache update", e);
> >>
> >> I mean, we genuinely don't know what happened here.
> >>
> >> Under new rules, what kind of "workaround" would that exception suggest?
> >> "Try turning it off and then back on"?
> >> What explanation how to resolve this exception can we offer? "Please
> write
> >> to dev@apache.ignite.org or to Apache JIRA, and then wait for a release
> >> with fix?"
> >>
> >> I'm really confused how we can implement 1.6 and 1.7 when dealing with
> >> messy real-world code.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Ilya Kasnacheev
> >>
> >> 2018-05-10 11:39 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>:
> >>
> >> > Andrey, Anton, Alex
> >> >
> >> > Agree, *SHOULD* is more appropriate here.
> >> >
> >> > Please see latest version below. Does anyone want to add or change
> >> > something? Let's wait for several days for more feedback and then
> >> publish
> >> > and announce this list. Note that it would not be carved in stone and
> we
> >> > will be able to change it at any time if needed.
> >> >
> >> > 1) API
> >> > 1.1) API compatibility *MUST* be maintained between minor releases. Do
> >> not
> >> > remove existing methods or change their signatures, deprecate them
> >> instead
> >> > 1.2) Default behaviour "SHOULD NOT* be changed between minor releases,
> >> > unless absolutely needed. If change is made, it *MUST* be described in
> >> > "Migration Guide"
> >> > 1.3) New operation *MUST* be well-documented in code (javadoc,
> >> dotnetdoc):
> >> > documentation must contain method's purpose, description of parameters
> >> and
> >> > how their values affect the outcome, description of return value and
> >> it's
> >> > default, behavior in negative cases, interaction with other operations
> >> and
> >> > components
> >> > 1.4) API parity between Java and .NET platforms *SHOULD* be maintained
> >> when
> >> > operation makes sense on both platforms. If method cannot be
> >> implemented in
> >> > a platform immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be created and linked
> to
> >> > current ticket
> >> > 1.5) API parity between thin clients (Java, .NET) *SHOULD* be
> maintained
> >> > when operation makes sense on several clients. If method cannot be
> >> > implemented in a client immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be created
> >> and
> >> > linked to current ticket
> >> > 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user **SHOULD** have explanation how
> to
> >> > resolve, workaround or debug an error
> >> >
> >> > 2) Compatibility
> >> > 2.1) Persistence backward compatibility *MUST* be maintained between
> >> minor
> >> > releases. It should be possible to start newer version on data files
> >> > created by the previous version
> >> > 2.2) Thin client forward and backward compatibility *SHOULD* be
> >> maintained
> >> > between two consecutive minor releases. If compatibility cannot be
> >> > maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
> >> > 2.3) JDBC and ODBC forward and backward compatibility *SHOULD* be
> >> > maintained between two consecutive minor releases. If compatibility
> >> cannot
> >> > be maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
> >> >
> >> > 3) Tests
> >> > 3.1) New functionality *MUST* be covered with unit tests for both
> >> positive
> >> > and negative use cases
> >> > 3.2) All test suites *MUST* be run before merge to master..There
> *MUST*
> >> be
> >> > no new test failures
> >> >
> >> > 4) Code style *MUST* be followed as per Ignite's Coding Guidelines
> >> >
> >> > Vladimir.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 1:05 PM, Andrey Kuznetsov <st...@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Anton,
> >> > >
> >> > > I agree, *MUST* for exception reasons and *SHOULD* for ways of
> >> resolution
> >> > > sound clearer.
> >> > >
> >> > > 2018-05-08 12:56 GMT+03:00 Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Andrey,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > How about
> >> > > > 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user *MUST* have explanation of
> >> > > workaround
> >> > > > and contain original error.
> >> > > > All exceptions thrown to a user *SHOULD* have explanation how to
> >> > resolve
> >> > > if
> >> > > > possible.
> >> > > > ?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > вт, 8 мая 2018 г. в 12:26, Andrey Kuznetsov <st...@gmail.com>:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > Vladimir, checklist looks pleasant enough for me.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > I'd like to suggest one minor change. In 1.6 *MUST* seems to be
> >> too
> >> > > > strict,
> >> > > > > *SHOULD* would be enough. It can be frustrating for API user if
> I
> >> > > explain
> >> > > > > how to fix NPEs in a trivial way, for example.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > 2018-05-08 11:34 GMT+03:00 Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > Alex,
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > It is not sounds like that, obviously.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Tests should cover all negative and positive cases.
> >> > > > > > You should add enough tests to cover all cases.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Sometimes one test can cover more than one case, so two tests
> >> *CAN*
> >> > > > > > partially check same things.
> >> > > > > > In case some cases already covered you should not create
> >> > duplicates.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > вт, 8 мая 2018 г. в 10:19, Александр Меньшиков <
> >> > sharplermc@gmail.com
> >> > > >:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Vladimir, the 3.1 is a bit unclear for me. Which code
> >> coverage is
> >> > > > > > > acceptable? Now it sounds like two tests are enough (one for
> >> > > positive
> >> > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > one for negative cases).
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > 2018-05-07 23:09 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> >> > > dsetrakyan@apache.org
> >> > > > >:
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > Is this list on the Wiki?
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 7:26 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> >> > > > > vozerov@gridgain.com>
> >> > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > This is the checklist I have at the moment. Please let
> me
> >> > know
> >> > > if
> >> > > > > you
> >> > > > > > > > have
> >> > > > > > > > > any comments on existing items, or want to add or remove
> >> > > > anything.
> >> > > > > It
> >> > > > > > > > looks
> >> > > > > > > > > like we may have not only strict rules, but *nice to
> have*
> >> > > points
> >> > > > > > here
> >> > > > > > > as
> >> > > > > > > > > well with help of *MUST*, *SHOULD* and *MAY* words as
> per
> >> > > RFC2119
> >> > > > > > [1].
> >> > > > > > > So
> >> > > > > > > > > please feel free to suggest optional items as well.
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > 1) API
> >> > > > > > > > > 1.1) API compatibility *MUST* be maintained between
> minor
> >> > > > releases.
> >> > > > > > Do
> >> > > > > > > > not
> >> > > > > > > > > remove existing methods or change their signatures,
> >> deprecate
> >> > > > them
> >> > > > > > > > instead
> >> > > > > > > > > 1.2) Default behaviour "SHOULD NOT* be changed between
> >> minor
> >> > > > > > releases,
> >> > > > > > > > > unless absolutely needed. If change is made, it *MUST*
> be
> >> > > > described
> >> > > > > > in
> >> > > > > > > > > "Migration Guide"
> >> > > > > > > > > 1.3) New operation *MUST* be well-documented in code
> >> > (javadoc,
> >> > > > > > > > dotnetdoc):
> >> > > > > > > > > documentation must contain method's purpose, description
> >> of
> >> > > > > > parameters
> >> > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > how their values affect the outcome, description of
> return
> >> > > value
> >> > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > it's
> >> > > > > > > > > default, behavior in negative cases, interaction with
> >> other
> >> > > > > > operations
> >> > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > components
> >> > > > > > > > > 1.4) API parity between Java and .NET platforms *SHOULD*
> >> be
> >> > > > > > maintained
> >> > > > > > > > when
> >> > > > > > > > > operation makes sense on both platforms. If method
> cannot
> >> be
> >> > > > > > > implemented
> >> > > > > > > > in
> >> > > > > > > > > a platform immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be
> created
> >> and
> >> > > > > linked
> >> > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > current ticket
> >> > > > > > > > > 1.5) API parity between thin clients (Java, .NET)
> >> *SHOULD* be
> >> > > > > > > maintained
> >> > > > > > > > > when operation makes sense on several clients. If method
> >> > cannot
> >> > > > be
> >> > > > > > > > > implemented in a client immediately, new JIRA ticket
> >> *MUST*
> >> > be
> >> > > > > > created
> >> > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > linked to current ticket
> >> > > > > > > > > 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user *MUST* have
> >> explanation
> >> > > how
> >> > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > resolve, workaround or debug an error
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > 2) Compatibility
> >> > > > > > > > > 2.1) Persistence backward compatibility *MUST* be
> >> maintained
> >> > > > > between
> >> > > > > > > > minor
> >> > > > > > > > > releases. It should be possible to start newer version
> on
> >> > data
> >> > > > > files
> >> > > > > > > > > created by the previous version
> >> > > > > > > > > 2.2) Thin client forward and backward compatibility
> >> *SHOULD*
> >> > be
> >> > > > > > > > maintained
> >> > > > > > > > > between two consecutive minor releases. If compatibility
> >> > cannot
> >> > > > be
> >> > > > > > > > > maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
> >> > > > > > > > > 2.3) JDBC and ODBC forward and backward compatibility
> >> > *SHOULD*
> >> > > be
> >> > > > > > > > > maintained between two consecutive minor releases. If
> >> > > > compatibility
> >> > > > > > > > cannot
> >> > > > > > > > > be maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration
> Guide"
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > 3) Tests
> >> > > > > > > > > 3.1) New functionality *MUST* be covered with unit tests
> >> for
> >> > > both
> >> > > > > > > > positive
> >> > > > > > > > > and negative use cases
> >> > > > > > > > > 3.2) All test suites *MUST* be run before merge to
> >> > > master..There
> >> > > > > > *MUST*
> >> > > > > > > > be
> >> > > > > > > > > no new test failures
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > 4) Code style *MUST* be followed as per Ignite's Coding
> >> > > > Guidelines
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > Vladimir.
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > [1] https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> >> > > > > > vozerov@gridgain.com>
> >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > Hi Dmitry,
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > Yes, I'll do that in the nearest days.
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <
> >> > > > > > > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> Igniters, the idea was related to small refactorings
> >> > > > co-located
> >> > > > > > with
> >> > > > > > > > > main
> >> > > > > > > > > >> change.
> >> > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > >> Main change itself indicates that existing code did
> not
> >> > meet
> >> > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > criteria
> >> > > > > > > > > >> of practice. Approving of standalone refactorings
> >> instead
> >> > > > > > > contradicts
> >> > > > > > > > > with
> >> > > > > > > > > >> principle don't touch if it works. So I still like
> >> idea of
> >> > > > > > > co-located
> >> > > > > > > > > >> changes improving code, javadocs, style, etc.
> >> > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > >> But let's not argue about this point now, let's
> >> summarize
> >> > > the
> >> > > > > > > > undisputed
> >> > > > > > > > > >> points and add it to the wiki. Vladimir, would you
> >> please
> >> > do
> >> > > > it?
> >> > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > >> ср, 25 апр. 2018 г. в 16:42, Nikolay Izhikov <
> >> > > > > nizhikov@apache.org
> >> > > > > > >:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > Igniters,
> >> > > > > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > I agree with Vova.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > Don't fix if it works!
> >> > > > > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > If you 100% sure then it a useful addition to the
> >> > product
> >> > > -
> >> > > > > just
> >> > > > > > > > make
> >> > > > > > > > > a
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > separate ticket.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > В Ср, 25/04/2018 в 11:44 +0300, Vladimir Ozerov
> >> пишет:
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > Guys,
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > The problem with in-place refactorings is that
> you
> >> > > > increase
> >> > > > > > > > affected
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > scope.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > It is not uncommon to break compatibility or
> public
> >> > > > > contracts
> >> > > > > > > with
> >> > > > > > > > > >> even
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > minor things. E.g. recently we decided drop
> >> org.jsr166
> >> > > > > package
> >> > > > > > > in
> >> > > > > > > > > >> favor
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > of
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > Java 8 classes. Innocent change. Result - broken
> >> > > storage.
> >> > > > > > > Another
> >> > > > > > > > > >> problem
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > is conflicts. It is not uncommon to have
> long-lived
> >> > > > branches
> >> > > > > > > which
> >> > > > > > > > > we
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > need
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > to merge with master over and over again. And a
> >> lot of
> >> > > > > > > > refactorings
> >> > > > > > > > > >> cause
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > conflicts. It is much easier to resolve them if
> you
> >> > know
> >> > > > > that
> >> > > > > > > > logic
> >> > > > > > > > > >> was
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > not
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > affected as opposed to cases when you need to
> >> resolve
> >> > > both
> >> > > > > > > renames
> >> > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > method extractions along with business-logic
> >> changes.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > I'd like to repeat - if you have a time for
> >> > refactoring
> >> > > > then
> >> > > > > > you
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > definitely
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > have a time to extract these changes to separate
> PR
> >> > and
> >> > > > > > submit a
> >> > > > > > > > > >> separate
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > ticket. I am quite understand what "low priority"
> >> do
> >> > you
> >> > > > > mean
> >> > > > > > if
> >> > > > > > > > you
> >> > > > > > > > > >> do
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > refactorings on your own.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 10:52 PM, Andrey
> Kuznetsov
> >> <
> >> > > > > > > > > stkuzma@gmail.com
> >> > > > > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > +1.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > Once again, I beg for "small refactoring
> >> permission"
> >> > > in
> >> > > > a
> >> > > > > > > > > checklist.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > As of
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > today, separate tickets for small refactorings
> >> has
> >> > > > lowest
> >> > > > > > > > > priority,
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > since
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > they neither fix any flaw nor add new
> >> functionality.
> >> > > > Also,
> >> > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > attempts to
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > make issue-related code safer / cleaner / more
> >> > > readable
> >> > > > in
> >> > > > > > > > "real"
> >> > > > > > > > > >> pull
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > requests are typically rejected, since they
> >> > contradict
> >> > > > our
> >> > > > > > > > current
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > guidelines.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > I understand this will require a bit more
> effort
> >> > from
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > committer/maintainer,
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > but otherwise we will get constantly degrading
> >> code
> >> > > > > quality.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > 2018-04-24 18:52 GMT+03:00 Eduard Shangareev <
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > :
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Vladimir,
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > I am not talking about massive/sophisticated
> >> > > > > refactoring.
> >> > > > > > > But
> >> > > > > > > > I
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > believe
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > that ask to extract some methods should be OK
> >> to
> >> > do
> >> > > > > > without
> >> > > > > > > an
> >> > > > > > > > > >> extra
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > ticket.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > A checklist shouldn't be necessarily a set of
> >> > > certain
> >> > > > > > rules
> >> > > > > > > > but
> >> > > > > > > > > >> also
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > it
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > could include suggestion and reminders.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 6:39 PM, Vladimir
> >> Ozerov <
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > vozerov@gridgain.com>
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Ed,
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Refactoring is a separate task. If you
> would
> >> > like
> >> > > to
> >> > > > > > > rework
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > exchange
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > future
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > - please do this in a ticket "Refactor
> >> exchange
> >> > > > task",
> >> > > > > > > > nobody
> >> > > > > > > > > >> would
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > against
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > this. This is just a matter of creating
> >> separate
> >> > > > > ticket
> >> > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > separate
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > PR.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > If
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > one have a time for refactoring, it should
> >> not
> >> > be
> >> > > a
> >> > > > > > > problem
> >> > > > > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > him to
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > spend several minutes on JIRA and GitHub.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > As far as documentation - what you describe
> >> is
> >> > > > normal
> >> > > > > > > review
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > process,
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > when
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > reviewer might want to ask contributor to
> fix
> >> > > > > something.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> Checklist
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > is a
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > different thing - this is a set of rules
> >> which
> >> > > must
> >> > > > be
> >> > > > > > > > > followed
> >> > > > > > > > > >> by
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > anyone.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > I do not understand how you can define
> >> > > documentation
> >> > > > > in
> >> > > > > > > this
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > checklist.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Same problem with logging - what is
> "enough"?
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Eduard
> >> > > Shangareev <
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Igniters,
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I don't understand why you are so against
> >> > > > > refactoring.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Code already smells like hell. Methods
> 200+
> >> > line
> >> > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > normal.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > Exchange
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > future
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > is asking to be separated on several one.
> >> > > > > Transaction
> >> > > > > > > code
> >> > > > > > > > > >> could
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > understand
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > few people.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > If we separate refactoring from
> >> development it
> >> > > > would
> >> > > > > > > mean
> >> > > > > > > > > that
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > no one
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > will
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > do it.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > 2) Documentation.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Everything which was asked by reviewers
> to
> >> > > clarify
> >> > > > > > idea
> >> > > > > > > > > >> should be
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > reflected
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > in the code.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > 3) Logging.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Logging should be enough to troubleshoot
> >> the
> >> > > > problem
> >> > > > > > if
> >> > > > > > > > > >> someone
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > comes
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > user-list with an issue in the code.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 7:06 PM, Dmitry
> >> > Pavlov <
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > +1 to idea of checklist.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > +1 to refactoring and documenting code
> >> > related
> >> > > > to
> >> > > > > > > ticket
> >> > > > > > > > > in
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > +/-20
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > LOC
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > at
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > least.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > If we start to do it as part of our
> >> regular
> >> > > > > > > > contribution,
> >> > > > > > > > > >> code
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > will
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > be
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > better, it would became common practice
> >> and
> >> > > part
> >> > > > > of
> >> > > > > > > > Apache
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > Ignite
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > development culure.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > If we will hope we will have free time
> to
> >> > > submit
> >> > > > > > > > separate
> >> > > > > > > > > >> patch
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > someday
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > have patience to complete
> >> patch-submission
> >> > > > > process,
> >> > > > > > > code
> >> > > > > > > > > >> will
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > remain
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > undocumented and poor-readable.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Sincerely,
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > пт, 20 апр. 2018 г. в 18:56, Александр
> >> > > > Меньшиков <
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > sharplermc@gmail.com
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > :
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 4) Metrics.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > partially +1
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > It makes sense to have some minimal
> >> code
> >> > > > > coverage
> >> > > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > > > > new
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > code in
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > PR.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IMHO.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Also, we can limit the cyclomatic
> >> > complexity
> >> > > > of
> >> > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > new
> >> > > > > > > > > >> code
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > in
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > PR
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > too.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 6) Refactoring
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > -1
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > I understand why people want to
> >> refactor
> >> > old
> >> > > > > code.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > But I think refactoring should be
> >> always a
> >> > > > > > separate
> >> > > > > > > > > task.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > And it's better to remove all
> >> refactoring
> >> > > from
> >> > > > > PR,
> >> > > > > > > if
> >> > > > > > > > > it's
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > not
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > sense
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > of
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > the issue.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 16:54 GMT+03:00 Andrey
> >> > Kuznetsov
> >> > > <
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > stkuzma@gmail.com>:
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > What about adding the following
> item
> >> to
> >> > > the
> >> > > > > > > > checklist:
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > when the
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > change
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > adds
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > new functionality, then unit tests
> >> > should
> >> > > > also
> >> > > > > > be
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > provided, if
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > it's
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > technically possible?
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > As for refactorings, in fact they
> are
> >> > > > strongly
> >> > > > > > > > > >> discouraged
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > today
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > some
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > unclear reason. Let's permit to
> make
> >> > > > > > refactorings
> >> > > > > > > in
> >> > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > checklist
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > being
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > discussed. (Of cource, refactoring
> >> > should
> >> > > > > relate
> >> > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > >> problem
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > being
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > solved.)
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 16:16 GMT+03:00 Vladimir
> >> > > Ozerov <
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > vozerov@gridgain.com
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > :
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ed,
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately some of these
> points
> >> are
> >> > > not
> >> > > > > > good
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > candidates
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > for
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > checklist because of these:
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > - It must be clear and disallow
> >> > > *multiple
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > interpretations*
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > - It must be *lightweight*,
> >> otherwise
> >> > > > Ignite
> >> > > > > > > > > >> development
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > would
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > become a
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > nightmare
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > We cannot have "nice to have"
> >> points
> >> > > here.
> >> > > > > > > > Checklist
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > should
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > answer
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > question "is ticket eligible to
> be
> >> > > > merged?"
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Code style.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > +1
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  2) Documentation
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -1, it is impossible to define
> >> what is
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > "well-documented". A
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > piece
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > of
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > code
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > could be obvious for one
> >> contributor,
> >> > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > non-obvious
> >> > > > > > > > > >> for
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > another.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > In
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > any
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > case this is not a blocker for
> >> merge.
> >> > > > > Instead,
> >> > > > > > > > > during
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > review
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > one
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > can
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > ask
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > implementer to add more docs, but
> >> it
> >> > > > cannot
> >> > > > > be
> >> > > > > > > > > forced.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  3) Logging
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -1, same problem - what is
> "enough
> >> > > > > logging?".
> >> > > > > > > > Enough
> >> > > > > > > > > >> for
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > whom?
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > How
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > understand whether it is enough
> or
> >> > not?
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  4) Metrics
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -1, no clear boundaries, and
> >> decision
> >> > on
> >> > > > > > whether
> >> > > > > > > > > >> metrics
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > are
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > be
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > added
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > or
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > not should be performed during
> >> design
> >> > > > phase.
> >> > > > > > As
> >> > > > > > > > > >> before,
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > it is
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > perfectly
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > valid to ask contributor to add
> >> > metrics
> >> > > > with
> >> > > > > > > clear
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > explanation
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > why,
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > but
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > this is not part of the
> checklist.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5) TC status
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > +1, already mentioned
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  6) Refactoring
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Strong -1. OOP is a slippery
> slope,
> >> > > there
> >> > > > > are
> >> > > > > > no
> >> > > > > > > > > good
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > and bad
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > receipts
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > all cases, hence it cannot be
> used
> >> in
> >> > a
> >> > > > > > > checklist.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > We can borrow useful rules from
> >> p.2,
> >> > p.3
> >> > > > and
> >> > > > > > p.4
> >> > > > > > > > if
> >> > > > > > > > > >> you
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > provide
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > clear
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > definitions on how to measure
> them.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Vladimir.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:50 PM,
> >> > Eduard
> >> > > > > > > > Shangareev <
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Also, I want to add some
> >> technical
> >> > > > > > > requirement.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> Let's
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > discuss
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > them.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Code style.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The code needs to be formatted
> >> > > according
> >> > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > coding
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > guidelines
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/
> >> > > > > > confluence/display/IGNITE/
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Coding+Guidelines
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > .
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > code must not contain TODOs
> >> without
> >> > a
> >> > > > > ticket
> >> > > > > > > > > >> reference.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > It is highly recommended to
> make
> >> > major
> >> > > > > > > > formatting
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > changes
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > in
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > existing
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > code
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > as a separate commit, to make
> >> review
> >> > > > > process
> >> > > > > > > > more
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > practical.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Documentation.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Added code should be
> >> > well-documented.
> >> > > > Any
> >> > > > > > > > methods
> >> > > > > > > > > >> that
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > raise
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > questions
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > regarding their code flow,
> >> > invariants,
> >> > > > > > > > > >> synchronization,
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > etc.,
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > must
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > be
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > documented with comprehensive
> >> > javadoc.
> >> > > > Any
> >> > > > > > > > > reviewer
> >> > > > > > > > > >> can
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > request
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > that
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > a
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > particular added method be
> >> > documented.
> >> > > > > Also,
> >> > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > > > > is a
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > good
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > practice
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > document old code in a 10-20
> >> lines
> >> > > > region
> >> > > > > > > around
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > changed
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > code.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 3) Logging.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Make sure that there are enough
> >> > > logging
> >> > > > > > added
> >> > > > > > > in
> >> > > > > > > > > >> every
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > category
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > possible diagnostic in field.
> >> Check
> >> > > that
> >> > > > > > > logging
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > messages
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > are
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > properly
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > spelled.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 4) Metrics.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Are there any metrics that need
> >> to
> >> > be
> >> > > > > > exposed
> >> > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > >> user?
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 5) TC status.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Recheck that there are no new
> >> > failing
> >> > > > > tests
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 6) Refactoring.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The code should be better than
> >> > before:
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - extract method from big
> one;
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - do anything else to make
> >> code
> >> > > > clearer
> >> > > > > > > > (don't
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > forget
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > about
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > some
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    OOP-practise, replace
> if-else
> >> > hell
> >> > > > with
> >> > > > > > > > > >> inheritance
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - split refactoring
> (renaming,
> >> > code
> >> > > > > > format)
> >> > > > > > > > > from
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > actual
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > changes
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > by
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    separate commit
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:23
> PM,
> >> > > Eduard
> >> > > > > > > > > Shangareev <
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, guys.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that we should
> update
> >> > > > > > maintainers
> >> > > > > > > > list
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > before
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > adding
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > this
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > review
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > requirement.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > There should not be the
> >> situation
> >> > > when
> >> > > > > > there
> >> > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > >> only
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > one
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > contributor
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > who
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > is responsible for a
> component.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > We already have issues with
> >> review
> >> > > > speed
> >> > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > >> response
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > time.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 2:17
> >> PM,
> >> > > Anton
> >> > > > > > > > > Vinogradov
> >> > > > > > > > > >> <
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > av@apache.org
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vova,
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Everything you described
> >> sound
> >> > > good
> >> > > > to
> >> > > > > > me.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to propose to
> create
> >> > > > special
> >> > > > > > page
> >> > > > > > > > at
> >> > > > > > > > > AI
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > Wiki
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > describe
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > checklist.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case we'll find
> something
> >> > > should
> >> > > > be
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > changed/improved
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > it
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > will
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > be
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > easy
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > update the page.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 0:53 GMT+03:00
> >> > Nikolay
> >> > > > > > Izhikov
> >> > > > > > > <
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > nizhikov@apache.org
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > :
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Vladimir.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for seting up
> >> this
> >> > > > > > discussion.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As we discussed, I think
> an
> >> > > > > important
> >> > > > > > > part
> >> > > > > > > > > of
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > this
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > check
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > list
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > compatibility rules.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * What should be backward
> >> > > > > compatible?
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * How should we maintain
> >> it?
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) If ticket changes
> >> public
> >> > > API
> >> > > > or
> >> > > > > > > > > existing
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > behavior,
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > at
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > least
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > two
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commiters should approve
> >> the
> >> > > > changes
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can learn from other
> >> open
> >> > > > source
> >> > > > > > > > project
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > experience.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Apache Kafka [1], for
> >> example,
> >> > > > > > requires
> >> > > > > > > > > >> KIP(kafka
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > improvement
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > proposal)
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for *every* major change.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Major change definition
> >> > includes
> >> > > > > > public
> >> > > > > > > > API.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > confluence/display/KAFKA/
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> Kafka+Improvement+Proposals
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > В Чт, 19/04/2018 в 23:00
> >> > +0300,
> >> > > > > > Vladimir
> >> > > > > > > > > >> Ozerov
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > пишет:
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's glad to see our
> >> > community
> >> > > > > > becomes
> >> > > > > > > > > >> larger
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > every
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > day.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > But
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > as
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > grows
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes more and more
> >> > > difficult
> >> > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > manage
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > review and
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > merge
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > processes
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > keep quality of our
> >> > decisions
> >> > > at
> >> > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > proper
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > level.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > More
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > contributors,
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commits, more
> components
> >> > > > > interlinked
> >> > > > > > > > with
> >> > > > > > > > > >> each
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > other
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > in
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > subtle
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > ways.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to propose
> >> to
> >> > > > setup a
> >> > > > > > > > formal
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > review
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > checklist.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > This
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > would
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be a
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > set of actions every
> >> > reviewer
> >> > > > > needs
> >> > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > check
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > before
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > approving
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > merge
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of a
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > certain feature.
> Passing
> >> the
> >> > > > > > checklist
> >> > > > > > > > > >> would be
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > *necessary
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > but
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > not
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sufficient* phase
> before
> >> > > commit
> >> > > > > > could
> >> > > > > > > be
> >> > > > > > > > > >> added
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > to
> >> > > > > > > >

Re: Ticket review checklist

[Dmitry Pavlov <dp...@gmail.com>]

We cannot change this requirement to be softer because we need to come to
sutuation of 0-failed test.

If we allow commit with test failures, there will be a lot of mistakes new
failures will be considered as existing.

All contributors will check only new/not new failures. But actually all
failures should be checked.

чт, 24 мая 2018 г. в 15:04, Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>:

> Dmitry,
>
> We cannot add this requirements, because we do have failures on TC. This
> requirement implies that all development would stop until TC is green.
> We never had old requirement work, neither we need to enforce it now.
>
> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 2:59 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <dp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > 3.c
> >
> >    1. All test suites *MUST* be run on TeamCity [3] before merge to
> master,
> >    there *MUST NOT* be any test failures
> >
> >
> > 'New' word should be removed because we cant separate `new` and `non new`
> > failures.
> >
> > Let's imagine example, we have 50 green runs in master. And PR Run-All
> > contains this test failed. Is it new or not new? Actually we don't know.
> >
> > Existing requirement is about all TC must be green, so let's keep it as
> is.
> >
> > ср, 23 мая 2018 г. в 17:02, Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>:
> >
> > > Igniters,
> > >
> > > I created review checklist on WIKI [1] and also fixed related pages
> (e.g.
> > > "How To Contribute"). Please let me know if you have any comments
> before
> > I
> > > go with public announce.
> > >
> > > Vladimir.
> > >
> > > [1]
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Review+Checklist
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:10 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <vozerov@gridgain.com
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ilya,
> > > >
> > > > We define that exception messages *SHOULD* have clear explanation on
> > what
> > > > is wrong. *SHOULD* mean that the rule should be followed unless there
> > is
> > > a
> > > > reason not to follow. In your case you refer to some unexpected
> > behavior.
> > > > I.e. an exceptional situation developer is not aware of. In this case
> > for
> > > > sure we cannot force contributor to explain what is wrong, because,
> > well,
> > > > we don't know. This is why we relaxed the rule from *MUST* to
> *SHOULD*.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Ilya Kasnacheev <
> > > > ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I don't think I quite understand how exception explanations should
> > work.
> > > >>
> > > >> Imagine we have the following exception:
> > > >>
> > > >> // At least RuntimeException can be thrown by the code above when
> > > >> GridCacheContext is cleaned and there is
> > > >> // an attempt to use cleaned resources.
> > > >> U.error(log, "Unexpected exception during cache update", e);
> > > >>
> > > >> I mean, we genuinely don't know what happened here.
> > > >>
> > > >> Under new rules, what kind of "workaround" would that exception
> > suggest?
> > > >> "Try turning it off and then back on"?
> > > >> What explanation how to resolve this exception can we offer? "Please
> > > write
> > > >> to dev@apache.ignite.org or to Apache JIRA, and then wait for a
> > release
> > > >> with fix?"
> > > >>
> > > >> I'm really confused how we can implement 1.6 and 1.7 when dealing
> with
> > > >> messy real-world code.
> > > >>
> > > >> Regards,
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Ilya Kasnacheev
> > > >>
> > > >> 2018-05-10 11:39 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Andrey, Anton, Alex
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Agree, *SHOULD* is more appropriate here.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Please see latest version below. Does anyone want to add or change
> > > >> > something? Let's wait for several days for more feedback and then
> > > >> publish
> > > >> > and announce this list. Note that it would not be carved in stone
> > and
> > > we
> > > >> > will be able to change it at any time if needed.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > 1) API
> > > >> > 1.1) API compatibility *MUST* be maintained between minor
> releases.
> > Do
> > > >> not
> > > >> > remove existing methods or change their signatures, deprecate them
> > > >> instead
> > > >> > 1.2) Default behaviour "SHOULD NOT* be changed between minor
> > releases,
> > > >> > unless absolutely needed. If change is made, it *MUST* be
> described
> > in
> > > >> > "Migration Guide"
> > > >> > 1.3) New operation *MUST* be well-documented in code (javadoc,
> > > >> dotnetdoc):
> > > >> > documentation must contain method's purpose, description of
> > parameters
> > > >> and
> > > >> > how their values affect the outcome, description of return value
> and
> > > >> it's
> > > >> > default, behavior in negative cases, interaction with other
> > operations
> > > >> and
> > > >> > components
> > > >> > 1.4) API parity between Java and .NET platforms *SHOULD* be
> > maintained
> > > >> when
> > > >> > operation makes sense on both platforms. If method cannot be
> > > >> implemented in
> > > >> > a platform immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be created and
> linked
> > > to
> > > >> > current ticket
> > > >> > 1.5) API parity between thin clients (Java, .NET) *SHOULD* be
> > > maintained
> > > >> > when operation makes sense on several clients. If method cannot be
> > > >> > implemented in a client immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be
> > created
> > > >> and
> > > >> > linked to current ticket
> > > >> > 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user **SHOULD** have explanation
> how
> > > to
> > > >> > resolve, workaround or debug an error
> > > >> >
> > > >> > 2) Compatibility
> > > >> > 2.1) Persistence backward compatibility *MUST* be maintained
> between
> > > >> minor
> > > >> > releases. It should be possible to start newer version on data
> files
> > > >> > created by the previous version
> > > >> > 2.2) Thin client forward and backward compatibility *SHOULD* be
> > > >> maintained
> > > >> > between two consecutive minor releases. If compatibility cannot be
> > > >> > maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
> > > >> > 2.3) JDBC and ODBC forward and backward compatibility *SHOULD* be
> > > >> > maintained between two consecutive minor releases. If
> compatibility
> > > >> cannot
> > > >> > be maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
> > > >> >
> > > >> > 3) Tests
> > > >> > 3.1) New functionality *MUST* be covered with unit tests for both
> > > >> positive
> > > >> > and negative use cases
> > > >> > 3.2) All test suites *MUST* be run before merge to master..There
> > > *MUST*
> > > >> be
> > > >> > no new test failures
> > > >> >
> > > >> > 4) Code style *MUST* be followed as per Ignite's Coding Guidelines
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Vladimir.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 1:05 PM, Andrey Kuznetsov <
> stkuzma@gmail.com
> > >
> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > Anton,
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > I agree, *MUST* for exception reasons and *SHOULD* for ways of
> > > >> resolution
> > > >> > > sound clearer.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > 2018-05-08 12:56 GMT+03:00 Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > Andrey,
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > How about
> > > >> > > > 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user *MUST* have explanation
> of
> > > >> > > workaround
> > > >> > > > and contain original error.
> > > >> > > > All exceptions thrown to a user *SHOULD* have explanation how
> to
> > > >> > resolve
> > > >> > > if
> > > >> > > > possible.
> > > >> > > > ?
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > вт, 8 мая 2018 г. в 12:26, Andrey Kuznetsov <
> stkuzma@gmail.com
> > >:
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > Vladimir, checklist looks pleasant enough for me.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > I'd like to suggest one minor change. In 1.6 *MUST* seems to
> > be
> > > >> too
> > > >> > > > strict,
> > > >> > > > > *SHOULD* would be enough. It can be frustrating for API user
> > if
> > > I
> > > >> > > explain
> > > >> > > > > how to fix NPEs in a trivial way, for example.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > 2018-05-08 11:34 GMT+03:00 Anton Vinogradov <av@apache.org
> >:
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > Alex,
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > It is not sounds like that, obviously.
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > Tests should cover all negative and positive cases.
> > > >> > > > > > You should add enough tests to cover all cases.
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > Sometimes one test can cover more than one case, so two
> > tests
> > > >> *CAN*
> > > >> > > > > > partially check same things.
> > > >> > > > > > In case some cases already covered you should not create
> > > >> > duplicates.
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > вт, 8 мая 2018 г. в 10:19, Александр Меньшиков <
> > > >> > sharplermc@gmail.com
> > > >> > > >:
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > Vladimir, the 3.1 is a bit unclear for me. Which code
> > > >> coverage is
> > > >> > > > > > > acceptable? Now it sounds like two tests are enough (one
> > for
> > > >> > > positive
> > > >> > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > > one for negative cases).
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > 2018-05-07 23:09 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > > >> > > dsetrakyan@apache.org
> > > >> > > > >:
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > Is this list on the Wiki?
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 7:26 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > >> > > > > vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > >> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > This is the checklist I have at the moment. Please
> let
> > > me
> > > >> > know
> > > >> > > if
> > > >> > > > > you
> > > >> > > > > > > > have
> > > >> > > > > > > > > any comments on existing items, or want to add or
> > remove
> > > >> > > > anything.
> > > >> > > > > It
> > > >> > > > > > > > looks
> > > >> > > > > > > > > like we may have not only strict rules, but *nice to
> > > have*
> > > >> > > points
> > > >> > > > > > here
> > > >> > > > > > > as
> > > >> > > > > > > > > well with help of *MUST*, *SHOULD* and *MAY* words
> as
> > > per
> > > >> > > RFC2119
> > > >> > > > > > [1].
> > > >> > > > > > > So
> > > >> > > > > > > > > please feel free to suggest optional items as well.
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > 1) API
> > > >> > > > > > > > > 1.1) API compatibility *MUST* be maintained between
> > > minor
> > > >> > > > releases.
> > > >> > > > > > Do
> > > >> > > > > > > > not
> > > >> > > > > > > > > remove existing methods or change their signatures,
> > > >> deprecate
> > > >> > > > them
> > > >> > > > > > > > instead
> > > >> > > > > > > > > 1.2) Default behaviour "SHOULD NOT* be changed
> between
> > > >> minor
> > > >> > > > > > releases,
> > > >> > > > > > > > > unless absolutely needed. If change is made, it
> *MUST*
> > > be
> > > >> > > > described
> > > >> > > > > > in
> > > >> > > > > > > > > "Migration Guide"
> > > >> > > > > > > > > 1.3) New operation *MUST* be well-documented in code
> > > >> > (javadoc,
> > > >> > > > > > > > dotnetdoc):
> > > >> > > > > > > > > documentation must contain method's purpose,
> > description
> > > >> of
> > > >> > > > > > parameters
> > > >> > > > > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > > > > how their values affect the outcome, description of
> > > return
> > > >> > > value
> > > >> > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > > it's
> > > >> > > > > > > > > default, behavior in negative cases, interaction
> with
> > > >> other
> > > >> > > > > > operations
> > > >> > > > > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > > > > components
> > > >> > > > > > > > > 1.4) API parity between Java and .NET platforms
> > *SHOULD*
> > > >> be
> > > >> > > > > > maintained
> > > >> > > > > > > > when
> > > >> > > > > > > > > operation makes sense on both platforms. If method
> > > cannot
> > > >> be
> > > >> > > > > > > implemented
> > > >> > > > > > > > in
> > > >> > > > > > > > > a platform immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be
> > > created
> > > >> and
> > > >> > > > > linked
> > > >> > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > > > > current ticket
> > > >> > > > > > > > > 1.5) API parity between thin clients (Java, .NET)
> > > >> *SHOULD* be
> > > >> > > > > > > maintained
> > > >> > > > > > > > > when operation makes sense on several clients. If
> > method
> > > >> > cannot
> > > >> > > > be
> > > >> > > > > > > > > implemented in a client immediately, new JIRA ticket
> > > >> *MUST*
> > > >> > be
> > > >> > > > > > created
> > > >> > > > > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > > > > linked to current ticket
> > > >> > > > > > > > > 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user *MUST* have
> > > >> explanation
> > > >> > > how
> > > >> > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > > > > resolve, workaround or debug an error
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > 2) Compatibility
> > > >> > > > > > > > > 2.1) Persistence backward compatibility *MUST* be
> > > >> maintained
> > > >> > > > > between
> > > >> > > > > > > > minor
> > > >> > > > > > > > > releases. It should be possible to start newer
> version
> > > on
> > > >> > data
> > > >> > > > > files
> > > >> > > > > > > > > created by the previous version
> > > >> > > > > > > > > 2.2) Thin client forward and backward compatibility
> > > >> *SHOULD*
> > > >> > be
> > > >> > > > > > > > maintained
> > > >> > > > > > > > > between two consecutive minor releases. If
> > compatibility
> > > >> > cannot
> > > >> > > > be
> > > >> > > > > > > > > maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration
> Guide"
> > > >> > > > > > > > > 2.3) JDBC and ODBC forward and backward
> compatibility
> > > >> > *SHOULD*
> > > >> > > be
> > > >> > > > > > > > > maintained between two consecutive minor releases.
> If
> > > >> > > > compatibility
> > > >> > > > > > > > cannot
> > > >> > > > > > > > > be maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration
> > > Guide"
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > 3) Tests
> > > >> > > > > > > > > 3.1) New functionality *MUST* be covered with unit
> > tests
> > > >> for
> > > >> > > both
> > > >> > > > > > > > positive
> > > >> > > > > > > > > and negative use cases
> > > >> > > > > > > > > 3.2) All test suites *MUST* be run before merge to
> > > >> > > master..There
> > > >> > > > > > *MUST*
> > > >> > > > > > > > be
> > > >> > > > > > > > > no new test failures
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > 4) Code style *MUST* be followed as per Ignite's
> > Coding
> > > >> > > > Guidelines
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > Vladimir.
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > [1] https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > >> > > > > > vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > Hi Dmitry,
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > Yes, I'll do that in the nearest days.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <
> > > >> > > > > > > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> Igniters, the idea was related to small
> > refactorings
> > > >> > > > co-located
> > > >> > > > > > with
> > > >> > > > > > > > > main
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> change.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> Main change itself indicates that existing code
> did
> > > not
> > > >> > meet
> > > >> > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > > > > criteria
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> of practice. Approving of standalone refactorings
> > > >> instead
> > > >> > > > > > > contradicts
> > > >> > > > > > > > > with
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> principle don't touch if it works. So I still
> like
> > > >> idea of
> > > >> > > > > > > co-located
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> changes improving code, javadocs, style, etc.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> But let's not argue about this point now, let's
> > > >> summarize
> > > >> > > the
> > > >> > > > > > > > undisputed
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> points and add it to the wiki. Vladimir, would
> you
> > > >> please
> > > >> > do
> > > >> > > > it?
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> ср, 25 апр. 2018 г. в 16:42, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > >> > > > > nizhikov@apache.org
> > > >> > > > > > >:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > Igniters,
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > I agree with Vova.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > Don't fix if it works!
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > If you 100% sure then it a useful addition to
> the
> > > >> > product
> > > >> > > -
> > > >> > > > > just
> > > >> > > > > > > > make
> > > >> > > > > > > > > a
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > separate ticket.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > В Ср, 25/04/2018 в 11:44 +0300, Vladimir Ozerov
> > > >> пишет:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > Guys,
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > The problem with in-place refactorings is
> that
> > > you
> > > >> > > > increase
> > > >> > > > > > > > affected
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > scope.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > It is not uncommon to break compatibility or
> > > public
> > > >> > > > > contracts
> > > >> > > > > > > with
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> even
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > minor things. E.g. recently we decided drop
> > > >> org.jsr166
> > > >> > > > > package
> > > >> > > > > > > in
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> favor
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > of
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > Java 8 classes. Innocent change. Result -
> > broken
> > > >> > > storage.
> > > >> > > > > > > Another
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> problem
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > is conflicts. It is not uncommon to have
> > > long-lived
> > > >> > > > branches
> > > >> > > > > > > which
> > > >> > > > > > > > > we
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > need
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > to merge with master over and over again.
> And a
> > > >> lot of
> > > >> > > > > > > > refactorings
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> cause
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > conflicts. It is much easier to resolve them
> if
> > > you
> > > >> > know
> > > >> > > > > that
> > > >> > > > > > > > logic
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> was
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > not
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > affected as opposed to cases when you need to
> > > >> resolve
> > > >> > > both
> > > >> > > > > > > renames
> > > >> > > > > > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > method extractions along with business-logic
> > > >> changes.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > I'd like to repeat - if you have a time for
> > > >> > refactoring
> > > >> > > > then
> > > >> > > > > > you
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > definitely
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > have a time to extract these changes to
> > separate
> > > PR
> > > >> > and
> > > >> > > > > > submit a
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> separate
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > ticket. I am quite understand what "low
> > priority"
> > > >> do
> > > >> > you
> > > >> > > > > mean
> > > >> > > > > > if
> > > >> > > > > > > > you
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> do
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > refactorings on your own.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 10:52 PM, Andrey
> > > Kuznetsov
> > > >> <
> > > >> > > > > > > > > stkuzma@gmail.com
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > +1.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > Once again, I beg for "small refactoring
> > > >> permission"
> > > >> > > in
> > > >> > > > a
> > > >> > > > > > > > > checklist.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > As of
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > today, separate tickets for small
> > refactorings
> > > >> has
> > > >> > > > lowest
> > > >> > > > > > > > > priority,
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > since
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > they neither fix any flaw nor add new
> > > >> functionality.
> > > >> > > > Also,
> > > >> > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > attempts to
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > make issue-related code safer / cleaner /
> > more
> > > >> > > readable
> > > >> > > > in
> > > >> > > > > > > > "real"
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> pull
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > requests are typically rejected, since they
> > > >> > contradict
> > > >> > > > our
> > > >> > > > > > > > current
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > guidelines.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > I understand this will require a bit more
> > > effort
> > > >> > from
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > committer/maintainer,
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > but otherwise we will get constantly
> > degrading
> > > >> code
> > > >> > > > > quality.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > 2018-04-24 18:52 GMT+03:00 Eduard
> Shangareev
> > <
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > :
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Vladimir,
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > I am not talking about
> > massive/sophisticated
> > > >> > > > > refactoring.
> > > >> > > > > > > But
> > > >> > > > > > > > I
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > believe
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > that ask to extract some methods should
> be
> > OK
> > > >> to
> > > >> > do
> > > >> > > > > > without
> > > >> > > > > > > an
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> extra
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > ticket.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > A checklist shouldn't be necessarily a
> set
> > of
> > > >> > > certain
> > > >> > > > > > rules
> > > >> > > > > > > > but
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> also
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > it
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > could include suggestion and reminders.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 6:39 PM, Vladimir
> > > >> Ozerov <
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Ed,
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Refactoring is a separate task. If you
> > > would
> > > >> > like
> > > >> > > to
> > > >> > > > > > > rework
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > exchange
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > future
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > - please do this in a ticket "Refactor
> > > >> exchange
> > > >> > > > task",
> > > >> > > > > > > > nobody
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> would
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > against
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > this. This is just a matter of creating
> > > >> separate
> > > >> > > > > ticket
> > > >> > > > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > separate
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > PR.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > If
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > one have a time for refactoring, it
> > should
> > > >> not
> > > >> > be
> > > >> > > a
> > > >> > > > > > > problem
> > > >> > > > > > > > > for
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > him to
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > spend several minutes on JIRA and
> GitHub.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > As far as documentation - what you
> > describe
> > > >> is
> > > >> > > > normal
> > > >> > > > > > > review
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > process,
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > when
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > reviewer might want to ask contributor
> to
> > > fix
> > > >> > > > > something.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> Checklist
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > is a
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > different thing - this is a set of
> rules
> > > >> which
> > > >> > > must
> > > >> > > > be
> > > >> > > > > > > > > followed
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> by
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > anyone.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > I do not understand how you can define
> > > >> > > documentation
> > > >> > > > > in
> > > >> > > > > > > this
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > checklist.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Same problem with logging - what is
> > > "enough"?
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Eduard
> > > >> > > Shangareev <
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I don't understand why you are so
> > against
> > > >> > > > > refactoring.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Code already smells like hell.
> Methods
> > > 200+
> > > >> > line
> > > >> > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > > > normal.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > Exchange
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > future
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > is asking to be separated on several
> > one.
> > > >> > > > > Transaction
> > > >> > > > > > > code
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> could
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > understand
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > few people.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > If we separate refactoring from
> > > >> development it
> > > >> > > > would
> > > >> > > > > > > mean
> > > >> > > > > > > > > that
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > no one
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > will
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > do it.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > 2) Documentation.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Everything which was asked by
> reviewers
> > > to
> > > >> > > clarify
> > > >> > > > > > idea
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> should be
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > reflected
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > in the code.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > 3) Logging.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Logging should be enough to
> > troubleshoot
> > > >> the
> > > >> > > > problem
> > > >> > > > > > if
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> someone
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > comes
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > user-list with an issue in the code.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 7:06 PM,
> Dmitry
> > > >> > Pavlov <
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > +1 to idea of checklist.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > +1 to refactoring and documenting
> > code
> > > >> > related
> > > >> > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > > ticket
> > > >> > > > > > > > > in
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > +/-20
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > LOC
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > at
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > least.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > If we start to do it as part of our
> > > >> regular
> > > >> > > > > > > > contribution,
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> code
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > will
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > be
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > better, it would became common
> > practice
> > > >> and
> > > >> > > part
> > > >> > > > > of
> > > >> > > > > > > > Apache
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > Ignite
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > development culure.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > If we will hope we will have free
> > time
> > > to
> > > >> > > submit
> > > >> > > > > > > > separate
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> patch
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > someday
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > have patience to complete
> > > >> patch-submission
> > > >> > > > > process,
> > > >> > > > > > > code
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> will
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > remain
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > undocumented and poor-readable.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Sincerely,
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > пт, 20 апр. 2018 г. в 18:56,
> > Александр
> > > >> > > > Меньшиков <
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > sharplermc@gmail.com
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > :
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 4) Metrics.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > partially +1
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > It makes sense to have some
> minimal
> > > >> code
> > > >> > > > > coverage
> > > >> > > > > > > for
> > > >> > > > > > > > > new
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > code in
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > PR.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IMHO.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Also, we can limit the cyclomatic
> > > >> > complexity
> > > >> > > > of
> > > >> > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > > > new
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> code
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > in
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > PR
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > too.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 6) Refactoring
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > -1
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > I understand why people want to
> > > >> refactor
> > > >> > old
> > > >> > > > > code.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > But I think refactoring should be
> > > >> always a
> > > >> > > > > > separate
> > > >> > > > > > > > > task.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > And it's better to remove all
> > > >> refactoring
> > > >> > > from
> > > >> > > > > PR,
> > > >> > > > > > > if
> > > >> > > > > > > > > it's
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > not
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > sense
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > of
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > the issue.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 16:54 GMT+03:00 Andrey
> > > >> > Kuznetsov
> > > >> > > <
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > stkuzma@gmail.com>:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > What about adding the following
> > > item
> > > >> to
> > > >> > > the
> > > >> > > > > > > > checklist:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > when the
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > change
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > adds
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > new functionality, then unit
> > tests
> > > >> > should
> > > >> > > > also
> > > >> > > > > > be
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > provided, if
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > it's
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > technically possible?
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > As for refactorings, in fact
> they
> > > are
> > > >> > > > strongly
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> discouraged
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > today
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > for
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > some
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > unclear reason. Let's permit to
> > > make
> > > >> > > > > > refactorings
> > > >> > > > > > > in
> > > >> > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > checklist
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > being
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > discussed. (Of cource,
> > refactoring
> > > >> > should
> > > >> > > > > relate
> > > >> > > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> problem
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > being
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > solved.)
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 16:16 GMT+03:00
> > Vladimir
> > > >> > > Ozerov <
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > vozerov@gridgain.com
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > :
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ed,
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately some of these
> > > points
> > > >> are
> > > >> > > not
> > > >> > > > > > good
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > candidates
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > for
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > checklist because of these:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > - It must be clear and
> disallow
> > > >> > > *multiple
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > interpretations*
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > - It must be *lightweight*,
> > > >> otherwise
> > > >> > > > Ignite
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> development
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > would
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > become a
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > nightmare
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > We cannot have "nice to have"
> > > >> points
> > > >> > > here.
> > > >> > > > > > > > Checklist
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > should
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > answer
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > question "is ticket eligible
> to
> > > be
> > > >> > > > merged?"
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Code style.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > +1
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  2) Documentation
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -1, it is impossible to
> define
> > > >> what is
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > "well-documented". A
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > piece
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > of
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > code
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > could be obvious for one
> > > >> contributor,
> > > >> > > and
> > > >> > > > > > > > > non-obvious
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> for
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > another.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > In
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > any
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > case this is not a blocker
> for
> > > >> merge.
> > > >> > > > > Instead,
> > > >> > > > > > > > > during
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > review
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > one
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > can
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > ask
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > implementer to add more docs,
> > but
> > > >> it
> > > >> > > > cannot
> > > >> > > > > be
> > > >> > > > > > > > > forced.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  3) Logging
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -1, same problem - what is
> > > "enough
> > > >> > > > > logging?".
> > > >> > > > > > > > Enough
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> for
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > whom?
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > How
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > understand whether it is
> enough
> > > or
> > > >> > not?
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  4) Metrics
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -1, no clear boundaries, and
> > > >> decision
> > > >> > on
> > > >> > > > > > whether
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> metrics
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > are
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > be
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > added
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > or
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > not should be performed
> during
> > > >> design
> > > >> > > > phase.
> > > >> > > > > > As
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> before,
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > it is
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > perfectly
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > valid to ask contributor to
> add
> > > >> > metrics
> > > >> > > > with
> > > >> > > > > > > clear
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > explanation
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > why,
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > but
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > this is not part of the
> > > checklist.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5) TC status
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > +1, already mentioned
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  6) Refactoring
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Strong -1. OOP is a slippery
> > > slope,
> > > >> > > there
> > > >> > > > > are
> > > >> > > > > > no
> > > >> > > > > > > > > good
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > and bad
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > receipts
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > all cases, hence it cannot be
> > > used
> > > >> in
> > > >> > a
> > > >> > > > > > > checklist.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > We can borrow useful rules
> from
> > > >> p.2,
> > > >> > p.3
> > > >> > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > p.4
> > > >> > > > > > > > if
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> you
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > provide
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > clear
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > definitions on how to measure
> > > them.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Vladimir.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:50
> > PM,
> > > >> > Eduard
> > > >> > > > > > > > Shangareev <
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Also, I want to add some
> > > >> technical
> > > >> > > > > > > requirement.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> Let's
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > discuss
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > them.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Code style.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The code needs to be
> > formatted
> > > >> > > according
> > > >> > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > > > coding
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > guidelines
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/
> > > >> > > > > > confluence/display/IGNITE/
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Coding+Guidelines
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > .
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > code must not contain TODOs
> > > >> without
> > > >> > a
> > > >> > > > > ticket
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> reference.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > It is highly recommended to
> > > make
> > > >> > major
> > > >> > > > > > > > formatting
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > changes
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > in
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > existing
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > code
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > as a separate commit, to
> make
> > > >> review
> > > >> > > > > process
> > > >> > > > > > > > more
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > practical.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Documentation.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Added code should be
> > > >> > well-documented.
> > > >> > > > Any
> > > >> > > > > > > > methods
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> that
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > raise
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > questions
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > regarding their code flow,
> > > >> > invariants,
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> synchronization,
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > etc.,
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > must
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > be
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > documented with
> comprehensive
> > > >> > javadoc.
> > > >> > > > Any
> > > >> > > > > > > > > reviewer
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> can
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > request
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > that
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > a
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > particular added method be
> > > >> > documented.
> > > >> > > > > Also,
> > > >> > > > > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > > > > is a
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > good
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > practice
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > document old code in a
> 10-20
> > > >> lines
> > > >> > > > region
> > > >> > > > > > > around
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > changed
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > code.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 3) Logging.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Make sure that there are
> > enough
> > > >> > > logging
> > > >> > > > > > added
> > > >> > > > > > > in
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> every
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > category
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > for
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > possible diagnostic in
> field.
> > > >> Check
> > > >> > > that
> > > >> > > > > > > logging
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > messages
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > are
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > properly
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > spelled.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 4) Metrics.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Are there any metrics that
> > need
> > > >> to
> > > >> > be
> > > >> > > > > > exposed
> > > >> > > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> user?
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 5) TC status.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Recheck that there are no
> new
> > > >> > failing
> > > >> > > > > tests
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 6) Refactoring.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The code should be better
> > than
> > > >> > before:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - extract method from
> big
> > > one;
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - do anything else to
> make
> > > >> code
> > > >> > > > clearer
> > > >> > > > > > > > (don't
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > forget
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > about
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > some
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    OOP-practise, replace
> > > if-else
> > > >> > hell
> > > >> > > > with
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> inheritance
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - split refactoring
> > > (renaming,
> > > >> > code
> > > >> > > > > > format)
> > > >> > > > > > > > > from
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > actual
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > changes
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > by
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    separate commit
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at
> 3:23
> > > PM,
> > > >> > > Eduard
> > > >> > > > > > > > > Shangareev <
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> eduard.shangareev@gmail.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, guys.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that we should
> > > update
> > > >> > > > > > maintainers
> > > >> > > > > > > > list
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > before
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > adding
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > this
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > review
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > requirement.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > There should not be the
> > > >> situation
> > > >> > > when
> > > >> > > > > > there
> > > >> > > > > > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> only
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > one
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > contributor
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > who
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > is responsible for a
> > > component.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > We already have issues
> with
> > > >> review
> > > >> > > > speed
> > > >> > > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> response
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > time.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at
> > 2:17
> > > >> PM,
> > > >> > > Anton
> > > >> > > > > > > > > Vinogradov
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> <
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vova,
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Everything you
> described
> > > >> sound
> > > >> > > good
> > > >> > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > me.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to propose to
> > > create
> > > >> > > > special
> > > >> > > > > > page
> > > >> > > > > > > > at
> > > >> > > > > > > > > AI
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > Wiki
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > describe
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > checklist.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case we'll find
> > > something
> > > >> > > should
> > > >> > > > be
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > changed/improved
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > will
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > be
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >

Re: Ticket review checklist

[Павлухин Иван <vo...@gmail.com>]

Hi Dmitriy,

I agree with you about lambdas. For me they are quite useful and I believe
that this language feature is a solid and well proven part of modern Java.

I still feel that current statement in our guidelines should be rephrased.
But if others are ok with it then let's keep it as is.

2018-08-16 16:47 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@gmail.com>:

> Hi Ivan,
>
> Unfortunately, the review checklist does not work as well as it could. I
> hope the situation will change in the nearest future, I think we should
> come back to this idea and encourage contributors and reviewers to use the
> list.
>
> As for lambda's: some Igniters feel confident about it, and some Igniters
> don't. My opinion it is perfectly ok to use it if usage is local node only,
> is there is no chance lambda is serialized to the network. If there is such
> chance it is better to avoid it.
>
> Sincerely,
> Dmitriy Pavlov
>
> чт, 16 авг. 2018 г. в 12:09, Павлухин Иван <vo...@gmail.com>:
>
> > Vladimir,
> >
> > First of all, statements in Java 8 section [1] looks kind of prohibitive
> > for me. When a new contributor see words "preferred" and "avoided in most
> > cases" he most likely will not use such features (like I did). If a
> > statement is not prohibitive in practice it could be at least rephrased.
> >
> > A bit about expressiveness. I written a code during working on a real
> > ticket. The case is quite common in Ignite codebase. You can find example
> > with couple of approaches in snippet [2]. For me approach with lambdas is
> > expressive, compact and simple.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > [1]
> >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Coding+Guidelines#
> CodingGuidelines-Java8
> > [2] https://gist.github.com/pavlukhin/92701277f66f8901a7feda6283a5a299
> >
> > 2018-08-16 11:21 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>:
> >
> > > Hi Ivan,
> > >
> > > From what I see we do not restrict contributors to use lambdas and
> > streams.
> > > Document states that plain collections and anonymous classes are
> > > *preferred*. This is not obligatory requirement, and it seems
> reasonable
> > to
> > > me, because when developing complex projects at times it is better to
> > have
> > > more expressive code, than less non-obvious code which makes dozens
> > > operations in a single string.
> > >
> > > Or may be there are any other statements in the checklist which
> prevents
> > > users from using Java 8 features?
> > >
> > > Vladimir.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 7:16 PM ipavlukhin <vo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > >
> > > > I would like to refresh review checklist a little bit. Currently it
> [1]
> > > > contains section against lambda Lambda expressions and Stream API. As
> > > > far as I know it is not true anymore. Currently both features have
> > > > theirs usage in core module. What is a state of affairs for a
> subject?
> > > > Are there some well-known cases where e.g. lambdas are not
> applicable?
> > > > Should we document it?
> > > >
> > > > I personally think that we could delete entire Java 8 section from
> > > > checklist (and Java 5 as well). I understand that every tool should
> be
> > > > used judiciously but I doubt that all cases can be covered in short
> > > > checklist.
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > >
> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/
> Coding+Guidelines#
> > > CodingGuidelines-Java8
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 2018/07/09 20:53:42, Dmitry Pavlov <d....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >  > I also tend to agree about updating checklist>
> > > >  >
> > > >  > About suite timeouts, I suspect there is one problem introduced
> > > > recently>
> > > >  > within 3 days, which caused this mass timeouts.>
> > > >  >
> > > >  > I hope Igniters will find out reason soon. In relation to compute
> we
> > > > have>
> > > >  > only 2 possible cause:>
> > > >  > Ivan Daschinskiy (idaschinskiy) 2 files IGNITE-8869 Fixed>
> > > >  > PartitionsExchangeOnDiscoveryHistoryOverflowTest hanging>
> > > >  > Signed-off-by: Andrey Gura <ag...@apache.org> ···>
> > > >  >
> > > >  > Dmitriy Govorukhin (dgovorukhin) 12 files IGNITE-8827 Disable WAL
> > > > during>
> > > >  > apply updates on recovery>
> > > >  >
> > > >  > I guess if we fix this reason we will fix 10 suites more>
> > > >  > References:>
> > > >  >
> > > >
> > > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=
> > > IgniteTests24Java8_ComputeGrid&tab=buildTypeHistoryList&branch_
> > > IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  >
> > > >  >
> > > >  > пн, 9 июл. 2018 г. в 22:29, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:>
> > > >  >
> > > >  > > Sounds reasonable.>
> > > >  > > I've satrted Data Structures suite hang investigation [1].>
> > > >  > >>
> > > >  > > Igniters, especially commiters,>
> > > >  > > I know, you're busy, but it will be a great help to the project
> in
> > > > case you>
> > > >  > > fix at least one hang per person.>
> > > >  > >>
> > > >  > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8783>
> > > >  > >>
> > > >  > > пн, 9 июл. 2018 г. в 19:24, Maxim Muzafarov <ma...@gmail.com>:>
> > > >  > >>
> > > >  > > > Hi Igniters,>
> > > >  > > >>
> > > >  > > > Let's back to discussion of review checklist. Can we add more>
> > > >  > > clarification>
> > > >  > > > about running all suites on TeamCity?>
> > > >  > > >>
> > > >  > > > My suggestion is: “All test suites MUST be run on TeamCity [3]
> > > > before>
> > > >  > > merge>
> > > >  > > > to master, there MUST NOT be any test failures * and any
> > > > tests\suites>
> > > >  > > with>
> > > >  > > > “execution timeouts” *. Not important test failures should be
> > > > muted and>
> > > >  > > > handled according to [4] process.”>
> > > >  > > >>
> > > >  > > > As you can see we have stable “Execution timeouts” for>
> > > >  > > > “Activate\Deactiveate Cluster” test suite since 16-th June.
> How
> > > > can we be>
> > > >  > > > sure in this case that new changes would not break up old
> > > > functionality?>
> > > >  > > >>
> > > >  > > > From my point, all new changes MUST NOT be merged to master
> util
> > > > we will>
> > > >  > > > fix all execution timeouts for suites. Even if current changes
> > > > are not>
> > > >  > > > related to these timeouts.>
> > > >  > > >>
> > > >  > > > [1]>
> > > >  > > >>
> > > >  > > >>
> > > >  > >
> > > >
> > > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=
> > > IgniteTests24Java8_ActivateDeactivateCluster&tab=
> > > buildTypeHistoryList&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  > > >>
> > > >  > > >>
> > > >  > > > пн, 4 июн. 2018 г. в 15:56, Dmitry Pavlov <dp...@gmail.com>:>
> > > >  > > >>
> > > >  > > > > Requirement of green TC for each PR is community rule, not
> > my.>
> > > >  > > > >>
> > > >  > > > > I'll answer ro another question, what should we do with test
> > > > failure:>
> > > >  > > > > "Ideally - fix, but at least mute test and create ticket. ">
> > > >  > > > >>
> > > >  > > > > May be it's time to formalize Make TC Green Again process in
> > > > details,>
> > > >  > > so>
> > > >  > > > > let me share my draft.>
> > > >  > > > >>
> > > >  > > > > If Igniter see test failure (in master, in release bracnh,
> > > > etc), he>
> > > >  > > > should>
> > > >  > > > > consider following steps:>
> > > >  > > > >>
> > > >  > > > > - If your changes can led to this failure(s), please create
> > > issue>
> > > >  > > with>
> > > >  > > > > label MakeTeamCityGreenAgain and assign it to you.>
> > > >  > > > > - If you have fix, please set ticket to PA state and write
> to
> > > dev>
> > > >  > > > > list fix is ready.>
> > > >  > > > > - For case fix will require some time please mute test and
> > set>
> > > >  > > > label>
> > > >  > > > > Muted_Test to issue>
> > > >  > > > > - If you know which change caused failure please contact
> > change>
> > > >  > > author>
> > > >  > > > > directly.>
> > > >  > > > > - If you don't know which change caused failure please send
> > > > message>
> > > >  > > to>
> > > >  > > > > dev list to find out>
> > > >  > > > >>
> > > >  > > > >>
> > > >  > > > >>
> > > >  > > > >>
> > > >  > > > > пн, 4 июн. 2018 г. в 15:27, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > vo...@gridgain.com
> > > > >:>
> > > >  > > > >>
> > > >  > > > > > Dmitry,>
> > > >  > > > > >>
> > > >  > > > > > My question was how to proceed with your rules. Could you
> > > > please>
> > > >  > > > clarify?>
> > > >  > > > > >>
> > > >  > > > > > On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 2:52 PM, Dmitry Pavlov
> > > > <dp...@gmail.com>
> > > >  > > >>
> > > >  > > > > > wrote:>
> > > >  > > > > >>
> > > >  > > > > > > Vladimir, I mean strict definition, how much previous
> runs
> > > > should>
> > > >  > > > > > > contributor consider? What if test was failed by
> > > > infrastructure>
> > > >  > > > reason>
> > > >  > > > > in>
> > > >  > > > > > > master previously, how can contributor be sure test
> > failure
> > > > !=>
> > > >  > > broken>
> > > >  > > > > > code>
> > > >  > > > > > > in PR? In this case it should be double checked by>
> > > >  > > > > contributor/reviewer.>
> > > >  > > > > > > I'm sure nobody can give strict definition of 'new'
> > > failure.>
> > > >  > > > > > >>
> > > >  > > > > > > Flaky tests detected by TC may be taken into account in
> > > > check-list,>
> > > >  > > > > > because>
> > > >  > > > > > > contributor can check if failure is flaky. But again,
> not
> > > > all tests>
> > > >  > > > > with>
> > > >  > > > > > > floating failure is detected by TC as flaky.>
> > > >  > > > > > >>
> > > >  > > > > > > I don't understand what problem will be solved if we
> > soften
> > > > current>
> > > >  > > > > > > requirement with 'new' test? Everybody will continue to
> > > > complain>
> > > >  > > they>
> > > >  > > > > > PR's>
> > > >  > > > > > > test failures is not `new`. So let's keep it as is.>
> > > >  > > > > > >>
> > > >  > > > > > > пн, 4 июн. 2018 г. в 14:46, Vladimir Ozerov
> > > > <vo...@gridgain.com>
> > > >  > > >:>
> > > >  > > > > > >>
> > > >  > > > > > > > Dmitry,>
> > > >  > > > > > > >>
> > > >  > > > > > > > New failure is a failure hasn't happened on previous
> > > > runs. If it>
> > > >  > > do>
> > > >  > > > > > > > happened, then contributor should see if it is a flaky
> > or
> > > > not>
> > > >  > > > through>
> > > >  > > > > > > local>
> > > >  > > > > > > > and TC runs. The same works for timeout suites.>
> > > >  > > > > > > > Current statement in "Review Checklist" that there are
> > > > should be>
> > > >  > > no>
> > > >  > > > > > > failed>
> > > >  > > > > > > > tests is not applicable to real word. Almost every
> patch
> > > is>
> > > >  > > pushed>
> > > >  > > > to>
> > > >  > > > > > > > repository with test failures.>
> > > >  > > > > > > >>
> > > >  > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 2:22 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <>
> > > >  > > > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> > > >  > > > > >>
> > > >  > > > > > > > wrote:>
> > > >  > > > > > > >>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > Hi Vladimir, could you provide definition what is
> new
> > > > failure?>
> > > >  > > > how>
> > > >  > > > > do>
> > > >  > > > > > > you>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > know it is new or not?>
> > > >  > > > > > > > >>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > And please forget for a moment you're Ignite expert
> &
> > > > veteran,>
> > > >  > > > > > imagine>
> > > >  > > > > > > > you>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > are newcomer.>
> > > >  > > > > > > > >>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > I can't find any criteria that can be used by newbie
> > to
> > > > come to>
> > > >  > > > the>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > conclusion that test is new. Patch is accepted by
> > > > reviewer, so>
> > > >  > > it>
> > > >  > > > > > > should>
> > > >  > > > > > > > be>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > up to him to correctly register failures in tickets
> > > with>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > MakeTeamCityGreenAgain label and mute unimportant
> > > tests.>
> > > >  > > > > > > > >>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > пн, 4 июн. 2018 г. в 11:32, Vladimir Ozerov <>
> > > >  > > > vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > >  > > > > >:>
> > > >  > > > > > > > >>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > Dmitry,>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > >>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > I still do not see how new patches could be
> accepted
> > > > with>
> > > >  > > this>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > requirement>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > in place. Consider the following case: I created a
> > > > patch and>
> > > >  > > > run>
> > > >  > > > > it>
> > > >  > > > > > > on>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > TC,>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > observed N failures, verified through TC history
> > that
> > > > none if>
> > > >  > > > > them>
> > > >  > > > > > > are>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > new.>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > Am I eligible to push the commit?>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > >>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 3:11 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <>
> > > >  > > > > > > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > wrote:>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > >>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > Petr, good point. It is more intuitive, we
> should
> > > > mark test>
> > > >  > > > we>
> > > >  > > > > > can>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > ignore>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > by mute.>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > So Vladimir, you or other Ignite veteran can
> mute
> > > > test, if>
> > > >  > > > can>
> > > >  > > > > > say>
> > > >  > > > > > > it>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > is>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > not important.>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > чт, 24 мая 2018 г. в 15:07, Petr Ivanov <>
> > > >  > > mr.weider@gmail.com>
> > > >  > > > >:>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > Why cannot we mute (and file corresponding
> > > > tickets) all>
> > > >  > > > test>
> > > >  > > > > > > > failures>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > (including flaky) to some date and start
> > > > initiative Green>
> > > >  > > > TC?>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > > On 24 May 2018, at 15:04, Vladimir Ozerov <>
> > > >  > > > > > > vozerov@gridgain.com>>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > wrote:>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitry,>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > > We cannot add this requirements, because we
> do
> > > > have>
> > > >  > > > > failures>
> > > >  > > > > > on>
> > > >  > > > > > > > TC.>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > This>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > > requirement implies that all development
> would
> > > > stop>
> > > >  > > until>
> > > >  > > > > TC>
> > > >  > > > > > is>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > green.>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > > We never had old requirement work, neither
> we
> > > > need to>
> > > >  > > > > enforce>
> > > >  > > > > > > it>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > now.>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 2:59 PM, Dmitry
> Pavlov
> > > <>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >> 3.c>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >> 1. All test suites *MUST* be run on
> TeamCity
> > > [3]>
> > > >  > > > before>
> > > >  > > > > > > merge>
> > > >  > > > > > > > to>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > master,>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >> there *MUST NOT* be any test failures>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >> 'New' word should be removed because we
> cant
> > > > separate>
> > > >  > > > > `new`>
> > > >  > > > > > > and>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > `non>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > new`>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >> failures.>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >> Let's imagine example, we have 50 green
> runs
> > > in>
> > > >  > > master.>
> > > >  > > > > And>
> > > >  > > > > > PR>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > Run-All>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >> contains this test failed. Is it new or not
> > > new?>
> > > >  > > > Actually>
> > > >  > > > > we>
> > > >  > > > > > > > don't>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > know.>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >> Existing requirement is about all TC must
> be
> > > > green, so>
> > > >  > > > > let's>
> > > >  > > > > > > > keep>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > it>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > as>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > is.>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >> ср, 23 мая 2018 г. в 17:02, Vladimir Ozerov
> > <>
> > > >  > > > > > > > vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > >:>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Igniters,>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I created review checklist on WIKI [1] and
> > > > also fixed>
> > > >  > > > > > related>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > pages>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > (e.g.>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>> "How To Contribute"). Please let me know
> if
> > > > you have>
> > > >  > > > any>
> > > >  > > > > > > > comments>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > before>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >> I>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>> go with public announce.>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Vladimir.>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>> [1]>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > >  > > > > > > >>
> > > >  > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/
> > > Review+Checklist
> > > > >
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:10 PM, Vladimir
> > > > Ozerov <>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>> wrote:>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Ilya,>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> We define that exception messages
> *SHOULD*
> > > > have>
> > > >  > > clear>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > explanation>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > on>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >> what>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> is wrong. *SHOULD* mean that the rule
> > should
> > > > be>
> > > >  > > > followed>
> > > >  > > > > > > > unless>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > there>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >> is>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>> a>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> reason not to follow. In your case you
> > refer
> > > > to some>
> > > >  > > > > > > > unexpected>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >> behavior.>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> I.e. an exceptional situation developer
> is
> > > > not aware>
> > > >  > > > of.>
> > > >  > > > > > In>
> > > >  > > > > > > > this>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > case>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >> for>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> sure we cannot force contributor to
> explain
> > > > what is>
> > > >  > > > > wrong,>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > because,>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >> well,>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> we don't know. This is why we relaxed the
> > > > rule from>
> > > >  > > > > *MUST*>
> > > >  > > > > > > to>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > *SHOULD*.>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Ilya
> > > > Kasnacheev <>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com> wrote:>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I don't think I quite understand how
> > > > exception>
> > > >  > > > > > explanations>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > should>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >> work.>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Imagine we have the following
> exception:>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> // At least RuntimeException can be
> thrown
> > > > by the>
> > > >  > > > code>
> > > >  > > > > > > above>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > when>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> GridCacheContext is cleaned and there
> is>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> // an attempt to use cleaned resources.>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> U.error(log, "Unexpected exception
> during
> > > > cache>
> > > >  > > > > update",>
> > > >  > > > > > > e);>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I mean, we genuinely don't know what
> > > > happened here.>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Under new rules, what kind of
> "workaround"
> > > > would>
> > > >  > > that>
> > > >  > > > > > > > exception>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >> suggest?>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> "Try turning it off and then back on"?>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> What explanation how to resolve this
> > > > exception can>
> > > >  > > we>
> > > >  > > > > > > offer?>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > "Please>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>> write>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> to dev@apache.ignite.org or to Apache
> > JIRA,
> > > > and>
> > > >  > > then>
> > > >  > > > > > wait>
> > > >  > > > > > > > for>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > a>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >> release>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> with fix?">
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I'm really confused how we can implement
> > > > 1.6 and>
> > > >  > > 1.7>
> > > >  > > > > when>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > dealing>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > with>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> messy real-world code.>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Regards,>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> -->
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> 2018-05-10 11:39 GMT+03:00 Vladimir
> Ozerov
> > > <>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > >:>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Andrey, Anton, Alex>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Agree, *SHOULD* is more appropriate
> > here.>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Please see latest version below. Does
> > > > anyone want>
> > > >  > > to>
> > > >  > > > > add>
> > > >  > > > > > > or>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > change>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> something? Let's wait for several days
> > for
> > > > more>
> > > >  > > > > feedback>
> > > >  > > > > > > and>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > then>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> publish>
> > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> and announce t
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Ivan Pavlukhin
> >
>



-- 
Best regards,
Ivan Pavlukhin

Re: Ticket review checklist

[Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@gmail.com>]

Hi Ivan,

Unfortunately, the review checklist does not work as well as it could. I
hope the situation will change in the nearest future, I think we should
come back to this idea and encourage contributors and reviewers to use the
list.

As for lambda's: some Igniters feel confident about it, and some Igniters
don't. My opinion it is perfectly ok to use it if usage is local node only,
is there is no chance lambda is serialized to the network. If there is such
chance it is better to avoid it.

Sincerely,
Dmitriy Pavlov

чт, 16 авг. 2018 г. в 12:09, Павлухин Иван <vo...@gmail.com>:

> Vladimir,
>
> First of all, statements in Java 8 section [1] looks kind of prohibitive
> for me. When a new contributor see words "preferred" and "avoided in most
> cases" he most likely will not use such features (like I did). If a
> statement is not prohibitive in practice it could be at least rephrased.
>
> A bit about expressiveness. I written a code during working on a real
> ticket. The case is quite common in Ignite codebase. You can find example
> with couple of approaches in snippet [2]. For me approach with lambdas is
> expressive, compact and simple.
>
> What do you think?
>
> [1]
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Coding+Guidelines#CodingGuidelines-Java8
> [2] https://gist.github.com/pavlukhin/92701277f66f8901a7feda6283a5a299
>
> 2018-08-16 11:21 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>:
>
> > Hi Ivan,
> >
> > From what I see we do not restrict contributors to use lambdas and
> streams.
> > Document states that plain collections and anonymous classes are
> > *preferred*. This is not obligatory requirement, and it seems reasonable
> to
> > me, because when developing complex projects at times it is better to
> have
> > more expressive code, than less non-obvious code which makes dozens
> > operations in a single string.
> >
> > Or may be there are any other statements in the checklist which prevents
> > users from using Java 8 features?
> >
> > Vladimir.
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 7:16 PM ipavlukhin <vo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Igniters,
> > >
> > > I would like to refresh review checklist a little bit. Currently it [1]
> > > contains section against lambda Lambda expressions and Stream API. As
> > > far as I know it is not true anymore. Currently both features have
> > > theirs usage in core module. What is a state of affairs for a subject?
> > > Are there some well-known cases where e.g. lambdas are not applicable?
> > > Should we document it?
> > >
> > > I personally think that we could delete entire Java 8 section from
> > > checklist (and Java 5 as well). I understand that every tool should be
> > > used judiciously but I doubt that all cases can be covered in short
> > > checklist.
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Coding+Guidelines#
> > CodingGuidelines-Java8
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2018/07/09 20:53:42, Dmitry Pavlov <d....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >  > I also tend to agree about updating checklist>
> > >  >
> > >  > About suite timeouts, I suspect there is one problem introduced
> > > recently>
> > >  > within 3 days, which caused this mass timeouts.>
> > >  >
> > >  > I hope Igniters will find out reason soon. In relation to compute we
> > > have>
> > >  > only 2 possible cause:>
> > >  > Ivan Daschinskiy (idaschinskiy) 2 files IGNITE-8869 Fixed>
> > >  > PartitionsExchangeOnDiscoveryHistoryOverflowTest hanging>
> > >  > Signed-off-by: Andrey Gura <ag...@apache.org> ···>
> > >  >
> > >  > Dmitriy Govorukhin (dgovorukhin) 12 files IGNITE-8827 Disable WAL
> > > during>
> > >  > apply updates on recovery>
> > >  >
> > >  > I guess if we fix this reason we will fix 10 suites more>
> > >  > References:>
> > >  >
> > >
> > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=
> > IgniteTests24Java8_ComputeGrid&tab=buildTypeHistoryList&branch_
> > IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E>
> > >
> > >
> > >  >
> > >  >
> > >  > пн, 9 июл. 2018 г. в 22:29, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:>
> > >  >
> > >  > > Sounds reasonable.>
> > >  > > I've satrted Data Structures suite hang investigation [1].>
> > >  > >>
> > >  > > Igniters, especially commiters,>
> > >  > > I know, you're busy, but it will be a great help to the project in
> > > case you>
> > >  > > fix at least one hang per person.>
> > >  > >>
> > >  > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8783>
> > >  > >>
> > >  > > пн, 9 июл. 2018 г. в 19:24, Maxim Muzafarov <ma...@gmail.com>:>
> > >  > >>
> > >  > > > Hi Igniters,>
> > >  > > >>
> > >  > > > Let's back to discussion of review checklist. Can we add more>
> > >  > > clarification>
> > >  > > > about running all suites on TeamCity?>
> > >  > > >>
> > >  > > > My suggestion is: “All test suites MUST be run on TeamCity [3]
> > > before>
> > >  > > merge>
> > >  > > > to master, there MUST NOT be any test failures * and any
> > > tests\suites>
> > >  > > with>
> > >  > > > “execution timeouts” *. Not important test failures should be
> > > muted and>
> > >  > > > handled according to [4] process.”>
> > >  > > >>
> > >  > > > As you can see we have stable “Execution timeouts” for>
> > >  > > > “Activate\Deactiveate Cluster” test suite since 16-th June. How
> > > can we be>
> > >  > > > sure in this case that new changes would not break up old
> > > functionality?>
> > >  > > >>
> > >  > > > From my point, all new changes MUST NOT be merged to master util
> > > we will>
> > >  > > > fix all execution timeouts for suites. Even if current changes
> > > are not>
> > >  > > > related to these timeouts.>
> > >  > > >>
> > >  > > > [1]>
> > >  > > >>
> > >  > > >>
> > >  > >
> > >
> > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=
> > IgniteTests24Java8_ActivateDeactivateCluster&tab=
> > buildTypeHistoryList&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E>
> > >
> > >
> > >  > > >>
> > >  > > >>
> > >  > > > пн, 4 июн. 2018 г. в 15:56, Dmitry Pavlov <dp...@gmail.com>:>
> > >  > > >>
> > >  > > > > Requirement of green TC for each PR is community rule, not
> my.>
> > >  > > > >>
> > >  > > > > I'll answer ro another question, what should we do with test
> > > failure:>
> > >  > > > > "Ideally - fix, but at least mute test and create ticket. ">
> > >  > > > >>
> > >  > > > > May be it's time to formalize Make TC Green Again process in
> > > details,>
> > >  > > so>
> > >  > > > > let me share my draft.>
> > >  > > > >>
> > >  > > > > If Igniter see test failure (in master, in release bracnh,
> > > etc), he>
> > >  > > > should>
> > >  > > > > consider following steps:>
> > >  > > > >>
> > >  > > > > - If your changes can led to this failure(s), please create
> > issue>
> > >  > > with>
> > >  > > > > label MakeTeamCityGreenAgain and assign it to you.>
> > >  > > > > - If you have fix, please set ticket to PA state and write to
> > dev>
> > >  > > > > list fix is ready.>
> > >  > > > > - For case fix will require some time please mute test and
> set>
> > >  > > > label>
> > >  > > > > Muted_Test to issue>
> > >  > > > > - If you know which change caused failure please contact
> change>
> > >  > > author>
> > >  > > > > directly.>
> > >  > > > > - If you don't know which change caused failure please send
> > > message>
> > >  > > to>
> > >  > > > > dev list to find out>
> > >  > > > >>
> > >  > > > >>
> > >  > > > >>
> > >  > > > >>
> > >  > > > > пн, 4 июн. 2018 г. в 15:27, Vladimir Ozerov <
> vo...@gridgain.com
> > > >:>
> > >  > > > >>
> > >  > > > > > Dmitry,>
> > >  > > > > >>
> > >  > > > > > My question was how to proceed with your rules. Could you
> > > please>
> > >  > > > clarify?>
> > >  > > > > >>
> > >  > > > > > On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 2:52 PM, Dmitry Pavlov
> > > <dp...@gmail.com>
> > >  > > >>
> > >  > > > > > wrote:>
> > >  > > > > >>
> > >  > > > > > > Vladimir, I mean strict definition, how much previous runs
> > > should>
> > >  > > > > > > contributor consider? What if test was failed by
> > > infrastructure>
> > >  > > > reason>
> > >  > > > > in>
> > >  > > > > > > master previously, how can contributor be sure test
> failure
> > > !=>
> > >  > > broken>
> > >  > > > > > code>
> > >  > > > > > > in PR? In this case it should be double checked by>
> > >  > > > > contributor/reviewer.>
> > >  > > > > > > I'm sure nobody can give strict definition of 'new'
> > failure.>
> > >  > > > > > >>
> > >  > > > > > > Flaky tests detected by TC may be taken into account in
> > > check-list,>
> > >  > > > > > because>
> > >  > > > > > > contributor can check if failure is flaky. But again, not
> > > all tests>
> > >  > > > > with>
> > >  > > > > > > floating failure is detected by TC as flaky.>
> > >  > > > > > >>
> > >  > > > > > > I don't understand what problem will be solved if we
> soften
> > > current>
> > >  > > > > > > requirement with 'new' test? Everybody will continue to
> > > complain>
> > >  > > they>
> > >  > > > > > PR's>
> > >  > > > > > > test failures is not `new`. So let's keep it as is.>
> > >  > > > > > >>
> > >  > > > > > > пн, 4 июн. 2018 г. в 14:46, Vladimir Ozerov
> > > <vo...@gridgain.com>
> > >  > > >:>
> > >  > > > > > >>
> > >  > > > > > > > Dmitry,>
> > >  > > > > > > >>
> > >  > > > > > > > New failure is a failure hasn't happened on previous
> > > runs. If it>
> > >  > > do>
> > >  > > > > > > > happened, then contributor should see if it is a flaky
> or
> > > not>
> > >  > > > through>
> > >  > > > > > > local>
> > >  > > > > > > > and TC runs. The same works for timeout suites.>
> > >  > > > > > > > Current statement in "Review Checklist" that there are
> > > should be>
> > >  > > no>
> > >  > > > > > > failed>
> > >  > > > > > > > tests is not applicable to real word. Almost every patch
> > is>
> > >  > > pushed>
> > >  > > > to>
> > >  > > > > > > > repository with test failures.>
> > >  > > > > > > >>
> > >  > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 2:22 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <>
> > >  > > > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> > >  > > > > >>
> > >  > > > > > > > wrote:>
> > >  > > > > > > >>
> > >  > > > > > > > > Hi Vladimir, could you provide definition what is new
> > > failure?>
> > >  > > > how>
> > >  > > > > do>
> > >  > > > > > > you>
> > >  > > > > > > > > know it is new or not?>
> > >  > > > > > > > >>
> > >  > > > > > > > > And please forget for a moment you're Ignite expert &
> > > veteran,>
> > >  > > > > > imagine>
> > >  > > > > > > > you>
> > >  > > > > > > > > are newcomer.>
> > >  > > > > > > > >>
> > >  > > > > > > > > I can't find any criteria that can be used by newbie
> to
> > > come to>
> > >  > > > the>
> > >  > > > > > > > > conclusion that test is new. Patch is accepted by
> > > reviewer, so>
> > >  > > it>
> > >  > > > > > > should>
> > >  > > > > > > > be>
> > >  > > > > > > > > up to him to correctly register failures in tickets
> > with>
> > >  > > > > > > > > MakeTeamCityGreenAgain label and mute unimportant
> > tests.>
> > >  > > > > > > > >>
> > >  > > > > > > > > пн, 4 июн. 2018 г. в 11:32, Vladimir Ozerov <>
> > >  > > > vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > >  > > > > >:>
> > >  > > > > > > > >>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > Dmitry,>
> > >  > > > > > > > > >>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > I still do not see how new patches could be accepted
> > > with>
> > >  > > this>
> > >  > > > > > > > > requirement>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > in place. Consider the following case: I created a
> > > patch and>
> > >  > > > run>
> > >  > > > > it>
> > >  > > > > > > on>
> > >  > > > > > > > > TC,>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > observed N failures, verified through TC history
> that
> > > none if>
> > >  > > > > them>
> > >  > > > > > > are>
> > >  > > > > > > > > new.>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > Am I eligible to push the commit?>
> > >  > > > > > > > > >>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 3:11 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <>
> > >  > > > > > > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > wrote:>
> > >  > > > > > > > > >>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > Petr, good point. It is more intuitive, we should
> > > mark test>
> > >  > > > we>
> > >  > > > > > can>
> > >  > > > > > > > > ignore>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > by mute.>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > >>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > So Vladimir, you or other Ignite veteran can mute
> > > test, if>
> > >  > > > can>
> > >  > > > > > say>
> > >  > > > > > > it>
> > >  > > > > > > > > is>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > not important.>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > >>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > чт, 24 мая 2018 г. в 15:07, Petr Ivanov <>
> > >  > > mr.weider@gmail.com>
> > >  > > > >:>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > >>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > Why cannot we mute (and file corresponding
> > > tickets) all>
> > >  > > > test>
> > >  > > > > > > > failures>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > (including flaky) to some date and start
> > > initiative Green>
> > >  > > > TC?>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > > On 24 May 2018, at 15:04, Vladimir Ozerov <>
> > >  > > > > > > vozerov@gridgain.com>>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > wrote:>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitry,>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > > We cannot add this requirements, because we do
> > > have>
> > >  > > > > failures>
> > >  > > > > > on>
> > >  > > > > > > > TC.>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > This>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > > requirement implies that all development would
> > > stop>
> > >  > > until>
> > >  > > > > TC>
> > >  > > > > > is>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > green.>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > > We never had old requirement work, neither we
> > > need to>
> > >  > > > > enforce>
> > >  > > > > > > it>
> > >  > > > > > > > > now.>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 2:59 PM, Dmitry Pavlov
> > <>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >> 3.c>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >> 1. All test suites *MUST* be run on TeamCity
> > [3]>
> > >  > > > before>
> > >  > > > > > > merge>
> > >  > > > > > > > to>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > master,>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >> there *MUST NOT* be any test failures>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >> 'New' word should be removed because we cant
> > > separate>
> > >  > > > > `new`>
> > >  > > > > > > and>
> > >  > > > > > > > > `non>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > new`>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >> failures.>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >> Let's imagine example, we have 50 green runs
> > in>
> > >  > > master.>
> > >  > > > > And>
> > >  > > > > > PR>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > Run-All>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >> contains this test failed. Is it new or not
> > new?>
> > >  > > > Actually>
> > >  > > > > we>
> > >  > > > > > > > don't>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > know.>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >> Existing requirement is about all TC must be
> > > green, so>
> > >  > > > > let's>
> > >  > > > > > > > keep>
> > >  > > > > > > > > it>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > as>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > is.>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >> ср, 23 мая 2018 г. в 17:02, Vladimir Ozerov
> <>
> > >  > > > > > > > vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > >  > > > > > > > > >:>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Igniters,>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I created review checklist on WIKI [1] and
> > > also fixed>
> > >  > > > > > related>
> > >  > > > > > > > > pages>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > (e.g.>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>> "How To Contribute"). Please let me know if
> > > you have>
> > >  > > > any>
> > >  > > > > > > > comments>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > before>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >> I>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>> go with public announce.>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Vladimir.>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>> [1]>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > >  > > > > > > >>
> > >  > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/
> > Review+Checklist
> > > >
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:10 PM, Vladimir
> > > Ozerov <>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>> wrote:>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Ilya,>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> We define that exception messages *SHOULD*
> > > have>
> > >  > > clear>
> > >  > > > > > > > > explanation>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > on>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >> what>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> is wrong. *SHOULD* mean that the rule
> should
> > > be>
> > >  > > > followed>
> > >  > > > > > > > unless>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > there>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >> is>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>> a>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> reason not to follow. In your case you
> refer
> > > to some>
> > >  > > > > > > > unexpected>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >> behavior.>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> I.e. an exceptional situation developer is
> > > not aware>
> > >  > > > of.>
> > >  > > > > > In>
> > >  > > > > > > > this>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > case>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >> for>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> sure we cannot force contributor to explain
> > > what is>
> > >  > > > > wrong,>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > because,>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >> well,>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> we don't know. This is why we relaxed the
> > > rule from>
> > >  > > > > *MUST*>
> > >  > > > > > > to>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > *SHOULD*.>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Ilya
> > > Kasnacheev <>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com> wrote:>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I don't think I quite understand how
> > > exception>
> > >  > > > > > explanations>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > should>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >> work.>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Imagine we have the following exception:>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> // At least RuntimeException can be thrown
> > > by the>
> > >  > > > code>
> > >  > > > > > > above>
> > >  > > > > > > > > when>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> GridCacheContext is cleaned and there is>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> // an attempt to use cleaned resources.>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> U.error(log, "Unexpected exception during
> > > cache>
> > >  > > > > update",>
> > >  > > > > > > e);>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I mean, we genuinely don't know what
> > > happened here.>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Under new rules, what kind of "workaround"
> > > would>
> > >  > > that>
> > >  > > > > > > > exception>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >> suggest?>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> "Try turning it off and then back on"?>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> What explanation how to resolve this
> > > exception can>
> > >  > > we>
> > >  > > > > > > offer?>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > "Please>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>> write>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> to dev@apache.ignite.org or to Apache
> JIRA,
> > > and>
> > >  > > then>
> > >  > > > > > wait>
> > >  > > > > > > > for>
> > >  > > > > > > > > a>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >> release>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> with fix?">
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I'm really confused how we can implement
> > > 1.6 and>
> > >  > > 1.7>
> > >  > > > > when>
> > >  > > > > > > > > dealing>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > with>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> messy real-world code.>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Regards,>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> -->
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> 2018-05-10 11:39 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov
> > <>
> > >  > > > > > > > > vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > >:>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Andrey, Anton, Alex>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Agree, *SHOULD* is more appropriate
> here.>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Please see latest version below. Does
> > > anyone want>
> > >  > > to>
> > >  > > > > add>
> > >  > > > > > > or>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > change>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> something? Let's wait for several days
> for
> > > more>
> > >  > > > > feedback>
> > >  > > > > > > and>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > then>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> publish>
> > >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> and announce t
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Ivan Pavlukhin
>

Re: Ticket review checklist

[Павлухин Иван <vo...@gmail.com>]

Vladimir,

First of all, statements in Java 8 section [1] looks kind of prohibitive
for me. When a new contributor see words "preferred" and "avoided in most
cases" he most likely will not use such features (like I did). If a
statement is not prohibitive in practice it could be at least rephrased.

A bit about expressiveness. I written a code during working on a real
ticket. The case is quite common in Ignite codebase. You can find example
with couple of approaches in snippet [2]. For me approach with lambdas is
expressive, compact and simple.

What do you think?

[1]
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Coding+Guidelines#CodingGuidelines-Java8
[2] https://gist.github.com/pavlukhin/92701277f66f8901a7feda6283a5a299

2018-08-16 11:21 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>:

> Hi Ivan,
>
> From what I see we do not restrict contributors to use lambdas and streams.
> Document states that plain collections and anonymous classes are
> *preferred*. This is not obligatory requirement, and it seems reasonable to
> me, because when developing complex projects at times it is better to have
> more expressive code, than less non-obvious code which makes dozens
> operations in a single string.
>
> Or may be there are any other statements in the checklist which prevents
> users from using Java 8 features?
>
> Vladimir.
>
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 7:16 PM ipavlukhin <vo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Igniters,
> >
> > I would like to refresh review checklist a little bit. Currently it [1]
> > contains section against lambda Lambda expressions and Stream API. As
> > far as I know it is not true anymore. Currently both features have
> > theirs usage in core module. What is a state of affairs for a subject?
> > Are there some well-known cases where e.g. lambdas are not applicable?
> > Should we document it?
> >
> > I personally think that we could delete entire Java 8 section from
> > checklist (and Java 5 as well). I understand that every tool should be
> > used judiciously but I doubt that all cases can be covered in short
> > checklist.
> >
> > [1]
> >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Coding+Guidelines#
> CodingGuidelines-Java8
> >
> >
> > On 2018/07/09 20:53:42, Dmitry Pavlov <d....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >  > I also tend to agree about updating checklist>
> >  >
> >  > About suite timeouts, I suspect there is one problem introduced
> > recently>
> >  > within 3 days, which caused this mass timeouts.>
> >  >
> >  > I hope Igniters will find out reason soon. In relation to compute we
> > have>
> >  > only 2 possible cause:>
> >  > Ivan Daschinskiy (idaschinskiy) 2 files IGNITE-8869 Fixed>
> >  > PartitionsExchangeOnDiscoveryHistoryOverflowTest hanging>
> >  > Signed-off-by: Andrey Gura <ag...@apache.org> ···>
> >  >
> >  > Dmitriy Govorukhin (dgovorukhin) 12 files IGNITE-8827 Disable WAL
> > during>
> >  > apply updates on recovery>
> >  >
> >  > I guess if we fix this reason we will fix 10 suites more>
> >  > References:>
> >  >
> >
> > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=
> IgniteTests24Java8_ComputeGrid&tab=buildTypeHistoryList&branch_
> IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E>
> >
> >
> >  >
> >  >
> >  > пн, 9 июл. 2018 г. в 22:29, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:>
> >  >
> >  > > Sounds reasonable.>
> >  > > I've satrted Data Structures suite hang investigation [1].>
> >  > >>
> >  > > Igniters, especially commiters,>
> >  > > I know, you're busy, but it will be a great help to the project in
> > case you>
> >  > > fix at least one hang per person.>
> >  > >>
> >  > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8783>
> >  > >>
> >  > > пн, 9 июл. 2018 г. в 19:24, Maxim Muzafarov <ma...@gmail.com>:>
> >  > >>
> >  > > > Hi Igniters,>
> >  > > >>
> >  > > > Let's back to discussion of review checklist. Can we add more>
> >  > > clarification>
> >  > > > about running all suites on TeamCity?>
> >  > > >>
> >  > > > My suggestion is: “All test suites MUST be run on TeamCity [3]
> > before>
> >  > > merge>
> >  > > > to master, there MUST NOT be any test failures * and any
> > tests\suites>
> >  > > with>
> >  > > > “execution timeouts” *. Not important test failures should be
> > muted and>
> >  > > > handled according to [4] process.”>
> >  > > >>
> >  > > > As you can see we have stable “Execution timeouts” for>
> >  > > > “Activate\Deactiveate Cluster” test suite since 16-th June. How
> > can we be>
> >  > > > sure in this case that new changes would not break up old
> > functionality?>
> >  > > >>
> >  > > > From my point, all new changes MUST NOT be merged to master util
> > we will>
> >  > > > fix all execution timeouts for suites. Even if current changes
> > are not>
> >  > > > related to these timeouts.>
> >  > > >>
> >  > > > [1]>
> >  > > >>
> >  > > >>
> >  > >
> >
> > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=
> IgniteTests24Java8_ActivateDeactivateCluster&tab=
> buildTypeHistoryList&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E>
> >
> >
> >  > > >>
> >  > > >>
> >  > > > пн, 4 июн. 2018 г. в 15:56, Dmitry Pavlov <dp...@gmail.com>:>
> >  > > >>
> >  > > > > Requirement of green TC for each PR is community rule, not my.>
> >  > > > >>
> >  > > > > I'll answer ro another question, what should we do with test
> > failure:>
> >  > > > > "Ideally - fix, but at least mute test and create ticket. ">
> >  > > > >>
> >  > > > > May be it's time to formalize Make TC Green Again process in
> > details,>
> >  > > so>
> >  > > > > let me share my draft.>
> >  > > > >>
> >  > > > > If Igniter see test failure (in master, in release bracnh,
> > etc), he>
> >  > > > should>
> >  > > > > consider following steps:>
> >  > > > >>
> >  > > > > - If your changes can led to this failure(s), please create
> issue>
> >  > > with>
> >  > > > > label MakeTeamCityGreenAgain and assign it to you.>
> >  > > > > - If you have fix, please set ticket to PA state and write to
> dev>
> >  > > > > list fix is ready.>
> >  > > > > - For case fix will require some time please mute test and set>
> >  > > > label>
> >  > > > > Muted_Test to issue>
> >  > > > > - If you know which change caused failure please contact change>
> >  > > author>
> >  > > > > directly.>
> >  > > > > - If you don't know which change caused failure please send
> > message>
> >  > > to>
> >  > > > > dev list to find out>
> >  > > > >>
> >  > > > >>
> >  > > > >>
> >  > > > >>
> >  > > > > пн, 4 июн. 2018 г. в 15:27, Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com
> > >:>
> >  > > > >>
> >  > > > > > Dmitry,>
> >  > > > > >>
> >  > > > > > My question was how to proceed with your rules. Could you
> > please>
> >  > > > clarify?>
> >  > > > > >>
> >  > > > > > On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 2:52 PM, Dmitry Pavlov
> > <dp...@gmail.com>
> >  > > >>
> >  > > > > > wrote:>
> >  > > > > >>
> >  > > > > > > Vladimir, I mean strict definition, how much previous runs
> > should>
> >  > > > > > > contributor consider? What if test was failed by
> > infrastructure>
> >  > > > reason>
> >  > > > > in>
> >  > > > > > > master previously, how can contributor be sure test failure
> > !=>
> >  > > broken>
> >  > > > > > code>
> >  > > > > > > in PR? In this case it should be double checked by>
> >  > > > > contributor/reviewer.>
> >  > > > > > > I'm sure nobody can give strict definition of 'new'
> failure.>
> >  > > > > > >>
> >  > > > > > > Flaky tests detected by TC may be taken into account in
> > check-list,>
> >  > > > > > because>
> >  > > > > > > contributor can check if failure is flaky. But again, not
> > all tests>
> >  > > > > with>
> >  > > > > > > floating failure is detected by TC as flaky.>
> >  > > > > > >>
> >  > > > > > > I don't understand what problem will be solved if we soften
> > current>
> >  > > > > > > requirement with 'new' test? Everybody will continue to
> > complain>
> >  > > they>
> >  > > > > > PR's>
> >  > > > > > > test failures is not `new`. So let's keep it as is.>
> >  > > > > > >>
> >  > > > > > > пн, 4 июн. 2018 г. в 14:46, Vladimir Ozerov
> > <vo...@gridgain.com>
> >  > > >:>
> >  > > > > > >>
> >  > > > > > > > Dmitry,>
> >  > > > > > > >>
> >  > > > > > > > New failure is a failure hasn't happened on previous
> > runs. If it>
> >  > > do>
> >  > > > > > > > happened, then contributor should see if it is a flaky or
> > not>
> >  > > > through>
> >  > > > > > > local>
> >  > > > > > > > and TC runs. The same works for timeout suites.>
> >  > > > > > > > Current statement in "Review Checklist" that there are
> > should be>
> >  > > no>
> >  > > > > > > failed>
> >  > > > > > > > tests is not applicable to real word. Almost every patch
> is>
> >  > > pushed>
> >  > > > to>
> >  > > > > > > > repository with test failures.>
> >  > > > > > > >>
> >  > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 2:22 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <>
> >  > > > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> >  > > > > >>
> >  > > > > > > > wrote:>
> >  > > > > > > >>
> >  > > > > > > > > Hi Vladimir, could you provide definition what is new
> > failure?>
> >  > > > how>
> >  > > > > do>
> >  > > > > > > you>
> >  > > > > > > > > know it is new or not?>
> >  > > > > > > > >>
> >  > > > > > > > > And please forget for a moment you're Ignite expert &
> > veteran,>
> >  > > > > > imagine>
> >  > > > > > > > you>
> >  > > > > > > > > are newcomer.>
> >  > > > > > > > >>
> >  > > > > > > > > I can't find any criteria that can be used by newbie to
> > come to>
> >  > > > the>
> >  > > > > > > > > conclusion that test is new. Patch is accepted by
> > reviewer, so>
> >  > > it>
> >  > > > > > > should>
> >  > > > > > > > be>
> >  > > > > > > > > up to him to correctly register failures in tickets
> with>
> >  > > > > > > > > MakeTeamCityGreenAgain label and mute unimportant
> tests.>
> >  > > > > > > > >>
> >  > > > > > > > > пн, 4 июн. 2018 г. в 11:32, Vladimir Ozerov <>
> >  > > > vozerov@gridgain.com>
> >  > > > > >:>
> >  > > > > > > > >>
> >  > > > > > > > > > Dmitry,>
> >  > > > > > > > > >>
> >  > > > > > > > > > I still do not see how new patches could be accepted
> > with>
> >  > > this>
> >  > > > > > > > > requirement>
> >  > > > > > > > > > in place. Consider the following case: I created a
> > patch and>
> >  > > > run>
> >  > > > > it>
> >  > > > > > > on>
> >  > > > > > > > > TC,>
> >  > > > > > > > > > observed N failures, verified through TC history that
> > none if>
> >  > > > > them>
> >  > > > > > > are>
> >  > > > > > > > > new.>
> >  > > > > > > > > > Am I eligible to push the commit?>
> >  > > > > > > > > >>
> >  > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 3:11 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <>
> >  > > > > > > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>>
> >  > > > > > > > > > wrote:>
> >  > > > > > > > > >>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > Petr, good point. It is more intuitive, we should
> > mark test>
> >  > > > we>
> >  > > > > > can>
> >  > > > > > > > > ignore>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > by mute.>
> >  > > > > > > > > > >>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > So Vladimir, you or other Ignite veteran can mute
> > test, if>
> >  > > > can>
> >  > > > > > say>
> >  > > > > > > it>
> >  > > > > > > > > is>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > not important.>
> >  > > > > > > > > > >>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > чт, 24 мая 2018 г. в 15:07, Petr Ivanov <>
> >  > > mr.weider@gmail.com>
> >  > > > >:>
> >  > > > > > > > > > >>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > Why cannot we mute (and file corresponding
> > tickets) all>
> >  > > > test>
> >  > > > > > > > failures>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > (including flaky) to some date and start
> > initiative Green>
> >  > > > TC?>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > > On 24 May 2018, at 15:04, Vladimir Ozerov <>
> >  > > > > > > vozerov@gridgain.com>>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > wrote:>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitry,>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > > We cannot add this requirements, because we do
> > have>
> >  > > > > failures>
> >  > > > > > on>
> >  > > > > > > > TC.>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > This>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > > requirement implies that all development would
> > stop>
> >  > > until>
> >  > > > > TC>
> >  > > > > > is>
> >  > > > > > > > > > green.>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > > We never had old requirement work, neither we
> > need to>
> >  > > > > enforce>
> >  > > > > > > it>
> >  > > > > > > > > now.>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 2:59 PM, Dmitry Pavlov
> <>
> >  > > > > > > > > > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >> 3.c>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >> 1. All test suites *MUST* be run on TeamCity
> [3]>
> >  > > > before>
> >  > > > > > > merge>
> >  > > > > > > > to>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > master,>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >> there *MUST NOT* be any test failures>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >> 'New' word should be removed because we cant
> > separate>
> >  > > > > `new`>
> >  > > > > > > and>
> >  > > > > > > > > `non>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > new`>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >> failures.>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >> Let's imagine example, we have 50 green runs
> in>
> >  > > master.>
> >  > > > > And>
> >  > > > > > PR>
> >  > > > > > > > > > Run-All>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >> contains this test failed. Is it new or not
> new?>
> >  > > > Actually>
> >  > > > > we>
> >  > > > > > > > don't>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > know.>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >> Existing requirement is about all TC must be
> > green, so>
> >  > > > > let's>
> >  > > > > > > > keep>
> >  > > > > > > > > it>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > as>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > is.>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >> ср, 23 мая 2018 г. в 17:02, Vladimir Ozerov <>
> >  > > > > > > > vozerov@gridgain.com>
> >  > > > > > > > > >:>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Igniters,>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I created review checklist on WIKI [1] and
> > also fixed>
> >  > > > > > related>
> >  > > > > > > > > pages>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > (e.g.>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>> "How To Contribute"). Please let me know if
> > you have>
> >  > > > any>
> >  > > > > > > > comments>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > before>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >> I>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>> go with public announce.>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Vladimir.>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>> [1]>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >  > > > > > > >>
> >  > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/
> Review+Checklist
> > >
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:10 PM, Vladimir
> > Ozerov <>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > vozerov@gridgain.com>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>> wrote:>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Ilya,>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> We define that exception messages *SHOULD*
> > have>
> >  > > clear>
> >  > > > > > > > > explanation>
> >  > > > > > > > > > on>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >> what>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> is wrong. *SHOULD* mean that the rule should
> > be>
> >  > > > followed>
> >  > > > > > > > unless>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > there>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >> is>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>> a>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> reason not to follow. In your case you refer
> > to some>
> >  > > > > > > > unexpected>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >> behavior.>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> I.e. an exceptional situation developer is
> > not aware>
> >  > > > of.>
> >  > > > > > In>
> >  > > > > > > > this>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > case>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >> for>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> sure we cannot force contributor to explain
> > what is>
> >  > > > > wrong,>
> >  > > > > > > > > > because,>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >> well,>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> we don't know. This is why we relaxed the
> > rule from>
> >  > > > > *MUST*>
> >  > > > > > > to>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > *SHOULD*.>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Ilya
> > Kasnacheev <>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com> wrote:>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I don't think I quite understand how
> > exception>
> >  > > > > > explanations>
> >  > > > > > > > > > should>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >> work.>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Imagine we have the following exception:>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> // At least RuntimeException can be thrown
> > by the>
> >  > > > code>
> >  > > > > > > above>
> >  > > > > > > > > when>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> GridCacheContext is cleaned and there is>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> // an attempt to use cleaned resources.>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> U.error(log, "Unexpected exception during
> > cache>
> >  > > > > update",>
> >  > > > > > > e);>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I mean, we genuinely don't know what
> > happened here.>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Under new rules, what kind of "workaround"
> > would>
> >  > > that>
> >  > > > > > > > exception>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >> suggest?>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> "Try turning it off and then back on"?>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> What explanation how to resolve this
> > exception can>
> >  > > we>
> >  > > > > > > offer?>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > "Please>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>> write>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> to dev@apache.ignite.org or to Apache JIRA,
> > and>
> >  > > then>
> >  > > > > > wait>
> >  > > > > > > > for>
> >  > > > > > > > > a>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >> release>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> with fix?">
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I'm really confused how we can implement
> > 1.6 and>
> >  > > 1.7>
> >  > > > > when>
> >  > > > > > > > > dealing>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > with>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> messy real-world code.>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Regards,>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> -->
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> 2018-05-10 11:39 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov
> <>
> >  > > > > > > > > vozerov@gridgain.com>
> >  > > > > > > > > > >:>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Andrey, Anton, Alex>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Agree, *SHOULD* is more appropriate here.>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Please see latest version below. Does
> > anyone want>
> >  > > to>
> >  > > > > add>
> >  > > > > > > or>
> >  > > > > > > > > > change>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> something? Let's wait for several days for
> > more>
> >  > > > > feedback>
> >  > > > > > > and>
> >  > > > > > > > > > then>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> publish>
> >  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> and announce t
> >
>



-- 
Best regards,
Ivan Pavlukhin

Re: Ticket review checklist

[Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>]

Hi Ivan,

From what I see we do not restrict contributors to use lambdas and streams.
Document states that plain collections and anonymous classes are
*preferred*. This is not obligatory requirement, and it seems reasonable to
me, because when developing complex projects at times it is better to have
more expressive code, than less non-obvious code which makes dozens
operations in a single string.

Or may be there are any other statements in the checklist which prevents
users from using Java 8 features?

Vladimir.

On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 7:16 PM ipavlukhin <vo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Igniters,
>
> I would like to refresh review checklist a little bit. Currently it [1]
> contains section against lambda Lambda expressions and Stream API. As
> far as I know it is not true anymore. Currently both features have
> theirs usage in core module. What is a state of affairs for a subject?
> Are there some well-known cases where e.g. lambdas are not applicable?
> Should we document it?
>
> I personally think that we could delete entire Java 8 section from
> checklist (and Java 5 as well). I understand that every tool should be
> used judiciously but I doubt that all cases can be covered in short
> checklist.
>
> [1]
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Coding+Guidelines#CodingGuidelines-Java8
>
>
> On 2018/07/09 20:53:42, Dmitry Pavlov <d....@gmail.com> wrote:
>  > I also tend to agree about updating checklist>
>  >
>  > About suite timeouts, I suspect there is one problem introduced
> recently>
>  > within 3 days, which caused this mass timeouts.>
>  >
>  > I hope Igniters will find out reason soon. In relation to compute we
> have>
>  > only 2 possible cause:>
>  > Ivan Daschinskiy (idaschinskiy) 2 files IGNITE-8869 Fixed>
>  > PartitionsExchangeOnDiscoveryHistoryOverflowTest hanging>
>  > Signed-off-by: Andrey Gura <ag...@apache.org> ···>
>  >
>  > Dmitriy Govorukhin (dgovorukhin) 12 files IGNITE-8827 Disable WAL
> during>
>  > apply updates on recovery>
>  >
>  > I guess if we fix this reason we will fix 10 suites more>
>  > References:>
>  >
>
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_ComputeGrid&tab=buildTypeHistoryList&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E>
>
>
>  >
>  >
>  > пн, 9 июл. 2018 г. в 22:29, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:>
>  >
>  > > Sounds reasonable.>
>  > > I've satrted Data Structures suite hang investigation [1].>
>  > >>
>  > > Igniters, especially commiters,>
>  > > I know, you're busy, but it will be a great help to the project in
> case you>
>  > > fix at least one hang per person.>
>  > >>
>  > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8783>
>  > >>
>  > > пн, 9 июл. 2018 г. в 19:24, Maxim Muzafarov <ma...@gmail.com>:>
>  > >>
>  > > > Hi Igniters,>
>  > > >>
>  > > > Let's back to discussion of review checklist. Can we add more>
>  > > clarification>
>  > > > about running all suites on TeamCity?>
>  > > >>
>  > > > My suggestion is: “All test suites MUST be run on TeamCity [3]
> before>
>  > > merge>
>  > > > to master, there MUST NOT be any test failures * and any
> tests\suites>
>  > > with>
>  > > > “execution timeouts” *. Not important test failures should be
> muted and>
>  > > > handled according to [4] process.”>
>  > > >>
>  > > > As you can see we have stable “Execution timeouts” for>
>  > > > “Activate\Deactiveate Cluster” test suite since 16-th June. How
> can we be>
>  > > > sure in this case that new changes would not break up old
> functionality?>
>  > > >>
>  > > > From my point, all new changes MUST NOT be merged to master util
> we will>
>  > > > fix all execution timeouts for suites. Even if current changes
> are not>
>  > > > related to these timeouts.>
>  > > >>
>  > > > [1]>
>  > > >>
>  > > >>
>  > >
>
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_ActivateDeactivateCluster&tab=buildTypeHistoryList&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E>
>
>
>  > > >>
>  > > >>
>  > > > пн, 4 июн. 2018 г. в 15:56, Dmitry Pavlov <dp...@gmail.com>:>
>  > > >>
>  > > > > Requirement of green TC for each PR is community rule, not my.>
>  > > > >>
>  > > > > I'll answer ro another question, what should we do with test
> failure:>
>  > > > > "Ideally - fix, but at least mute test and create ticket. ">
>  > > > >>
>  > > > > May be it's time to formalize Make TC Green Again process in
> details,>
>  > > so>
>  > > > > let me share my draft.>
>  > > > >>
>  > > > > If Igniter see test failure (in master, in release bracnh,
> etc), he>
>  > > > should>
>  > > > > consider following steps:>
>  > > > >>
>  > > > > - If your changes can led to this failure(s), please create issue>
>  > > with>
>  > > > > label MakeTeamCityGreenAgain and assign it to you.>
>  > > > > - If you have fix, please set ticket to PA state and write to dev>
>  > > > > list fix is ready.>
>  > > > > - For case fix will require some time please mute test and set>
>  > > > label>
>  > > > > Muted_Test to issue>
>  > > > > - If you know which change caused failure please contact change>
>  > > author>
>  > > > > directly.>
>  > > > > - If you don't know which change caused failure please send
> message>
>  > > to>
>  > > > > dev list to find out>
>  > > > >>
>  > > > >>
>  > > > >>
>  > > > >>
>  > > > > пн, 4 июн. 2018 г. в 15:27, Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com
> >:>
>  > > > >>
>  > > > > > Dmitry,>
>  > > > > >>
>  > > > > > My question was how to proceed with your rules. Could you
> please>
>  > > > clarify?>
>  > > > > >>
>  > > > > > On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 2:52 PM, Dmitry Pavlov
> <dp...@gmail.com>
>  > > >>
>  > > > > > wrote:>
>  > > > > >>
>  > > > > > > Vladimir, I mean strict definition, how much previous runs
> should>
>  > > > > > > contributor consider? What if test was failed by
> infrastructure>
>  > > > reason>
>  > > > > in>
>  > > > > > > master previously, how can contributor be sure test failure
> !=>
>  > > broken>
>  > > > > > code>
>  > > > > > > in PR? In this case it should be double checked by>
>  > > > > contributor/reviewer.>
>  > > > > > > I'm sure nobody can give strict definition of 'new' failure.>
>  > > > > > >>
>  > > > > > > Flaky tests detected by TC may be taken into account in
> check-list,>
>  > > > > > because>
>  > > > > > > contributor can check if failure is flaky. But again, not
> all tests>
>  > > > > with>
>  > > > > > > floating failure is detected by TC as flaky.>
>  > > > > > >>
>  > > > > > > I don't understand what problem will be solved if we soften
> current>
>  > > > > > > requirement with 'new' test? Everybody will continue to
> complain>
>  > > they>
>  > > > > > PR's>
>  > > > > > > test failures is not `new`. So let's keep it as is.>
>  > > > > > >>
>  > > > > > > пн, 4 июн. 2018 г. в 14:46, Vladimir Ozerov
> <vo...@gridgain.com>
>  > > >:>
>  > > > > > >>
>  > > > > > > > Dmitry,>
>  > > > > > > >>
>  > > > > > > > New failure is a failure hasn't happened on previous
> runs. If it>
>  > > do>
>  > > > > > > > happened, then contributor should see if it is a flaky or
> not>
>  > > > through>
>  > > > > > > local>
>  > > > > > > > and TC runs. The same works for timeout suites.>
>  > > > > > > > Current statement in "Review Checklist" that there are
> should be>
>  > > no>
>  > > > > > > failed>
>  > > > > > > > tests is not applicable to real word. Almost every patch is>
>  > > pushed>
>  > > > to>
>  > > > > > > > repository with test failures.>
>  > > > > > > >>
>  > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 2:22 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <>
>  > > > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
>  > > > > >>
>  > > > > > > > wrote:>
>  > > > > > > >>
>  > > > > > > > > Hi Vladimir, could you provide definition what is new
> failure?>
>  > > > how>
>  > > > > do>
>  > > > > > > you>
>  > > > > > > > > know it is new or not?>
>  > > > > > > > >>
>  > > > > > > > > And please forget for a moment you're Ignite expert &
> veteran,>
>  > > > > > imagine>
>  > > > > > > > you>
>  > > > > > > > > are newcomer.>
>  > > > > > > > >>
>  > > > > > > > > I can't find any criteria that can be used by newbie to
> come to>
>  > > > the>
>  > > > > > > > > conclusion that test is new. Patch is accepted by
> reviewer, so>
>  > > it>
>  > > > > > > should>
>  > > > > > > > be>
>  > > > > > > > > up to him to correctly register failures in tickets with>
>  > > > > > > > > MakeTeamCityGreenAgain label and mute unimportant tests.>
>  > > > > > > > >>
>  > > > > > > > > пн, 4 июн. 2018 г. в 11:32, Vladimir Ozerov <>
>  > > > vozerov@gridgain.com>
>  > > > > >:>
>  > > > > > > > >>
>  > > > > > > > > > Dmitry,>
>  > > > > > > > > >>
>  > > > > > > > > > I still do not see how new patches could be accepted
> with>
>  > > this>
>  > > > > > > > > requirement>
>  > > > > > > > > > in place. Consider the following case: I created a
> patch and>
>  > > > run>
>  > > > > it>
>  > > > > > > on>
>  > > > > > > > > TC,>
>  > > > > > > > > > observed N failures, verified through TC history that
> none if>
>  > > > > them>
>  > > > > > > are>
>  > > > > > > > > new.>
>  > > > > > > > > > Am I eligible to push the commit?>
>  > > > > > > > > >>
>  > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 3:11 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <>
>  > > > > > > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>>
>  > > > > > > > > > wrote:>
>  > > > > > > > > >>
>  > > > > > > > > > > Petr, good point. It is more intuitive, we should
> mark test>
>  > > > we>
>  > > > > > can>
>  > > > > > > > > ignore>
>  > > > > > > > > > > by mute.>
>  > > > > > > > > > >>
>  > > > > > > > > > > So Vladimir, you or other Ignite veteran can mute
> test, if>
>  > > > can>
>  > > > > > say>
>  > > > > > > it>
>  > > > > > > > > is>
>  > > > > > > > > > > not important.>
>  > > > > > > > > > >>
>  > > > > > > > > > > чт, 24 мая 2018 г. в 15:07, Petr Ivanov <>
>  > > mr.weider@gmail.com>
>  > > > >:>
>  > > > > > > > > > >>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > Why cannot we mute (and file corresponding
> tickets) all>
>  > > > test>
>  > > > > > > > failures>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > (including flaky) to some date and start
> initiative Green>
>  > > > TC?>
>  > > > > > > > > > > >>
>  > > > > > > > > > > >>
>  > > > > > > > > > > >>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > > On 24 May 2018, at 15:04, Vladimir Ozerov <>
>  > > > > > > vozerov@gridgain.com>>
>  > > > > > > > > > > wrote:>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitry,>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > > We cannot add this requirements, because we do
> have>
>  > > > > failures>
>  > > > > > on>
>  > > > > > > > TC.>
>  > > > > > > > > > > This>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > > requirement implies that all development would
> stop>
>  > > until>
>  > > > > TC>
>  > > > > > is>
>  > > > > > > > > > green.>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > > We never had old requirement work, neither we
> need to>
>  > > > > enforce>
>  > > > > > > it>
>  > > > > > > > > now.>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 2:59 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <>
>  > > > > > > > > > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >> 3.c>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >> 1. All test suites *MUST* be run on TeamCity [3]>
>  > > > before>
>  > > > > > > merge>
>  > > > > > > > to>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > master,>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >> there *MUST NOT* be any test failures>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >> 'New' word should be removed because we cant
> separate>
>  > > > > `new`>
>  > > > > > > and>
>  > > > > > > > > `non>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > new`>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >> failures.>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >> Let's imagine example, we have 50 green runs in>
>  > > master.>
>  > > > > And>
>  > > > > > PR>
>  > > > > > > > > > Run-All>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >> contains this test failed. Is it new or not new?>
>  > > > Actually>
>  > > > > we>
>  > > > > > > > don't>
>  > > > > > > > > > > know.>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >> Existing requirement is about all TC must be
> green, so>
>  > > > > let's>
>  > > > > > > > keep>
>  > > > > > > > > it>
>  > > > > > > > > > > as>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > is.>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >> ср, 23 мая 2018 г. в 17:02, Vladimir Ozerov <>
>  > > > > > > > vozerov@gridgain.com>
>  > > > > > > > > >:>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Igniters,>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I created review checklist on WIKI [1] and
> also fixed>
>  > > > > > related>
>  > > > > > > > > pages>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > (e.g.>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>> "How To Contribute"). Please let me know if
> you have>
>  > > > any>
>  > > > > > > > comments>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > before>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >> I>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>> go with public announce.>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Vladimir.>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>> [1]>
>  > > > > > > > > > > >>
>  > > > > > > >>
>  > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Review+Checklist
> >
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:10 PM, Vladimir
> Ozerov <>
>  > > > > > > > > > > vozerov@gridgain.com>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>> wrote:>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Ilya,>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> We define that exception messages *SHOULD*
> have>
>  > > clear>
>  > > > > > > > > explanation>
>  > > > > > > > > > on>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >> what>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> is wrong. *SHOULD* mean that the rule should
> be>
>  > > > followed>
>  > > > > > > > unless>
>  > > > > > > > > > > there>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >> is>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>> a>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> reason not to follow. In your case you refer
> to some>
>  > > > > > > > unexpected>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >> behavior.>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> I.e. an exceptional situation developer is
> not aware>
>  > > > of.>
>  > > > > > In>
>  > > > > > > > this>
>  > > > > > > > > > > case>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >> for>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> sure we cannot force contributor to explain
> what is>
>  > > > > wrong,>
>  > > > > > > > > > because,>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >> well,>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> we don't know. This is why we relaxed the
> rule from>
>  > > > > *MUST*>
>  > > > > > > to>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > *SHOULD*.>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Ilya
> Kasnacheev <>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com> wrote:>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I don't think I quite understand how
> exception>
>  > > > > > explanations>
>  > > > > > > > > > should>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >> work.>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Imagine we have the following exception:>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> // At least RuntimeException can be thrown
> by the>
>  > > > code>
>  > > > > > > above>
>  > > > > > > > > when>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> GridCacheContext is cleaned and there is>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> // an attempt to use cleaned resources.>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> U.error(log, "Unexpected exception during
> cache>
>  > > > > update",>
>  > > > > > > e);>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I mean, we genuinely don't know what
> happened here.>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Under new rules, what kind of "workaround"
> would>
>  > > that>
>  > > > > > > > exception>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >> suggest?>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> "Try turning it off and then back on"?>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> What explanation how to resolve this
> exception can>
>  > > we>
>  > > > > > > offer?>
>  > > > > > > > > > > "Please>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>> write>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> to dev@apache.ignite.org or to Apache JIRA,
> and>
>  > > then>
>  > > > > > wait>
>  > > > > > > > for>
>  > > > > > > > > a>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >> release>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> with fix?">
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I'm really confused how we can implement
> 1.6 and>
>  > > 1.7>
>  > > > > when>
>  > > > > > > > > dealing>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > with>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> messy real-world code.>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Regards,>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> -->
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> 2018-05-10 11:39 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <>
>  > > > > > > > > vozerov@gridgain.com>
>  > > > > > > > > > >:>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Andrey, Anton, Alex>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Agree, *SHOULD* is more appropriate here.>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Please see latest version below. Does
> anyone want>
>  > > to>
>  > > > > add>
>  > > > > > > or>
>  > > > > > > > > > change>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> something? Let's wait for several days for
> more>
>  > > > > feedback>
>  > > > > > > and>
>  > > > > > > > > > then>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> publish>
>  > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> and announce t
>

Re: Ticket review checklist

[ipavlukhin <vo...@gmail.com>]

Hi Igniters,

I would like to refresh review checklist a little bit. Currently it [1] 
contains section against lambda Lambda expressions and Stream API. As 
far as I know it is not true anymore. Currently both features have 
theirs usage in core module. What is a state of affairs for a subject? 
Are there some well-known cases where e.g. lambdas are not applicable? 
Should we document it?

I personally think that we could delete entire Java 8 section from 
checklist (and Java 5 as well). I understand that every tool should be 
used judiciously but I doubt that all cases can be covered in short 
checklist.

[1] 
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Coding+Guidelines#CodingGuidelines-Java8


On 2018/07/09 20:53:42, Dmitry Pavlov <d....@gmail.com> wrote:
 > I also tend to agree about updating checklist>
 >
 > About suite timeouts, I suspect there is one problem introduced 
recently>
 > within 3 days, which caused this mass timeouts.>
 >
 > I hope Igniters will find out reason soon. In relation to compute we 
have>
 > only 2 possible cause:>
 > Ivan Daschinskiy (idaschinskiy) 2 files IGNITE-8869 Fixed>
 > PartitionsExchangeOnDiscoveryHistoryOverflowTest hanging>
 > Signed-off-by: Andrey Gura <ag...@apache.org> ···>
 >
 > Dmitriy Govorukhin (dgovorukhin) 12 files IGNITE-8827 Disable WAL 
during>
 > apply updates on recovery>
 >
 > I guess if we fix this reason we will fix 10 suites more>
 > References:>
 > 
https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_ComputeGrid&tab=buildTypeHistoryList&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E> 

 >
 >
 > пн, 9 июл. 2018 г. в 22:29, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:>
 >
 > > Sounds reasonable.>
 > > I've satrted Data Structures suite hang investigation [1].>
 > >>
 > > Igniters, especially commiters,>
 > > I know, you're busy, but it will be a great help to the project in 
case you>
 > > fix at least one hang per person.>
 > >>
 > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8783>
 > >>
 > > пн, 9 июл. 2018 г. в 19:24, Maxim Muzafarov <ma...@gmail.com>:>
 > >>
 > > > Hi Igniters,>
 > > >>
 > > > Let's back to discussion of review checklist. Can we add more>
 > > clarification>
 > > > about running all suites on TeamCity?>
 > > >>
 > > > My suggestion is: “All test suites MUST be run on TeamCity [3] 
before>
 > > merge>
 > > > to master, there MUST NOT be any test failures * and any 
tests\suites>
 > > with>
 > > > “execution timeouts” *. Not important test failures should be 
muted and>
 > > > handled according to [4] process.”>
 > > >>
 > > > As you can see we have stable “Execution timeouts” for>
 > > > “Activate\Deactiveate Cluster” test suite since 16-th June. How 
can we be>
 > > > sure in this case that new changes would not break up old 
functionality?>
 > > >>
 > > > From my point, all new changes MUST NOT be merged to master util 
we will>
 > > > fix all execution timeouts for suites. Even if current changes 
are not>
 > > > related to these timeouts.>
 > > >>
 > > > [1]>
 > > >>
 > > >>
 > > 
https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_ActivateDeactivateCluster&tab=buildTypeHistoryList&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E> 

 > > >>
 > > >>
 > > > пн, 4 июн. 2018 г. в 15:56, Dmitry Pavlov <dp...@gmail.com>:>
 > > >>
 > > > > Requirement of green TC for each PR is community rule, not my.>
 > > > >>
 > > > > I'll answer ro another question, what should we do with test 
failure:>
 > > > > "Ideally - fix, but at least mute test and create ticket. ">
 > > > >>
 > > > > May be it's time to formalize Make TC Green Again process in 
details,>
 > > so>
 > > > > let me share my draft.>
 > > > >>
 > > > > If Igniter see test failure (in master, in release bracnh, 
etc), he>
 > > > should>
 > > > > consider following steps:>
 > > > >>
 > > > > - If your changes can led to this failure(s), please create issue>
 > > with>
 > > > > label MakeTeamCityGreenAgain and assign it to you.>
 > > > > - If you have fix, please set ticket to PA state and write to dev>
 > > > > list fix is ready.>
 > > > > - For case fix will require some time please mute test and set>
 > > > label>
 > > > > Muted_Test to issue>
 > > > > - If you know which change caused failure please contact change>
 > > author>
 > > > > directly.>
 > > > > - If you don't know which change caused failure please send 
message>
 > > to>
 > > > > dev list to find out>
 > > > >>
 > > > >>
 > > > >>
 > > > >>
 > > > > пн, 4 июн. 2018 г. в 15:27, Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>:>
 > > > >>
 > > > > > Dmitry,>
 > > > > >>
 > > > > > My question was how to proceed with your rules. Could you 
please>
 > > > clarify?>
 > > > > >>
 > > > > > On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 2:52 PM, Dmitry Pavlov 
<dp...@gmail.com>
 > > >>
 > > > > > wrote:>
 > > > > >>
 > > > > > > Vladimir, I mean strict definition, how much previous runs 
should>
 > > > > > > contributor consider? What if test was failed by 
infrastructure>
 > > > reason>
 > > > > in>
 > > > > > > master previously, how can contributor be sure test failure 
!=>
 > > broken>
 > > > > > code>
 > > > > > > in PR? In this case it should be double checked by>
 > > > > contributor/reviewer.>
 > > > > > > I'm sure nobody can give strict definition of 'new' failure.>
 > > > > > >>
 > > > > > > Flaky tests detected by TC may be taken into account in 
check-list,>
 > > > > > because>
 > > > > > > contributor can check if failure is flaky. But again, not 
all tests>
 > > > > with>
 > > > > > > floating failure is detected by TC as flaky.>
 > > > > > >>
 > > > > > > I don't understand what problem will be solved if we soften 
current>
 > > > > > > requirement with 'new' test? Everybody will continue to 
complain>
 > > they>
 > > > > > PR's>
 > > > > > > test failures is not `new`. So let's keep it as is.>
 > > > > > >>
 > > > > > > пн, 4 июн. 2018 г. в 14:46, Vladimir Ozerov 
<vo...@gridgain.com>
 > > >:>
 > > > > > >>
 > > > > > > > Dmitry,>
 > > > > > > >>
 > > > > > > > New failure is a failure hasn't happened on previous 
runs. If it>
 > > do>
 > > > > > > > happened, then contributor should see if it is a flaky or 
not>
 > > > through>
 > > > > > > local>
 > > > > > > > and TC runs. The same works for timeout suites.>
 > > > > > > > Current statement in "Review Checklist" that there are 
should be>
 > > no>
 > > > > > > failed>
 > > > > > > > tests is not applicable to real word. Almost every patch is>
 > > pushed>
 > > > to>
 > > > > > > > repository with test failures.>
 > > > > > > >>
 > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 2:22 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <>
 > > > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
 > > > > >>
 > > > > > > > wrote:>
 > > > > > > >>
 > > > > > > > > Hi Vladimir, could you provide definition what is new 
failure?>
 > > > how>
 > > > > do>
 > > > > > > you>
 > > > > > > > > know it is new or not?>
 > > > > > > > >>
 > > > > > > > > And please forget for a moment you're Ignite expert & 
veteran,>
 > > > > > imagine>
 > > > > > > > you>
 > > > > > > > > are newcomer.>
 > > > > > > > >>
 > > > > > > > > I can't find any criteria that can be used by newbie to 
come to>
 > > > the>
 > > > > > > > > conclusion that test is new. Patch is accepted by 
reviewer, so>
 > > it>
 > > > > > > should>
 > > > > > > > be>
 > > > > > > > > up to him to correctly register failures in tickets with>
 > > > > > > > > MakeTeamCityGreenAgain label and mute unimportant tests.>
 > > > > > > > >>
 > > > > > > > > пн, 4 июн. 2018 г. в 11:32, Vladimir Ozerov <>
 > > > vozerov@gridgain.com>
 > > > > >:>
 > > > > > > > >>
 > > > > > > > > > Dmitry,>
 > > > > > > > > >>
 > > > > > > > > > I still do not see how new patches could be accepted 
with>
 > > this>
 > > > > > > > > requirement>
 > > > > > > > > > in place. Consider the following case: I created a 
patch and>
 > > > run>
 > > > > it>
 > > > > > > on>
 > > > > > > > > TC,>
 > > > > > > > > > observed N failures, verified through TC history that 
none if>
 > > > > them>
 > > > > > > are>
 > > > > > > > > new.>
 > > > > > > > > > Am I eligible to push the commit?>
 > > > > > > > > >>
 > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 3:11 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <>
 > > > > > > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>>
 > > > > > > > > > wrote:>
 > > > > > > > > >>
 > > > > > > > > > > Petr, good point. It is more intuitive, we should 
mark test>
 > > > we>
 > > > > > can>
 > > > > > > > > ignore>
 > > > > > > > > > > by mute.>
 > > > > > > > > > >>
 > > > > > > > > > > So Vladimir, you or other Ignite veteran can mute 
test, if>
 > > > can>
 > > > > > say>
 > > > > > > it>
 > > > > > > > > is>
 > > > > > > > > > > not important.>
 > > > > > > > > > >>
 > > > > > > > > > > чт, 24 мая 2018 г. в 15:07, Petr Ivanov <>
 > > mr.weider@gmail.com>
 > > > >:>
 > > > > > > > > > >>
 > > > > > > > > > > > Why cannot we mute (and file corresponding 
tickets) all>
 > > > test>
 > > > > > > > failures>
 > > > > > > > > > > > (including flaky) to some date and start 
initiative Green>
 > > > TC?>
 > > > > > > > > > > >>
 > > > > > > > > > > >>
 > > > > > > > > > > >>
 > > > > > > > > > > > > On 24 May 2018, at 15:04, Vladimir Ozerov <>
 > > > > > > vozerov@gridgain.com>>
 > > > > > > > > > > wrote:>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>
 > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitry,>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>
 > > > > > > > > > > > > We cannot add this requirements, because we do 
have>
 > > > > failures>
 > > > > > on>
 > > > > > > > TC.>
 > > > > > > > > > > This>
 > > > > > > > > > > > > requirement implies that all development would 
stop>
 > > until>
 > > > > TC>
 > > > > > is>
 > > > > > > > > > green.>
 > > > > > > > > > > > > We never had old requirement work, neither we 
need to>
 > > > > enforce>
 > > > > > > it>
 > > > > > > > > now.>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>
 > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 2:59 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <>
 > > > > > > > > > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>>
 > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >> 3.c>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >> 1. All test suites *MUST* be run on TeamCity [3]>
 > > > before>
 > > > > > > merge>
 > > > > > > > to>
 > > > > > > > > > > > master,>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >> there *MUST NOT* be any test failures>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >> 'New' word should be removed because we cant 
separate>
 > > > > `new`>
 > > > > > > and>
 > > > > > > > > `non>
 > > > > > > > > > > > new`>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >> failures.>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >> Let's imagine example, we have 50 green runs in>
 > > master.>
 > > > > And>
 > > > > > PR>
 > > > > > > > > > Run-All>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >> contains this test failed. Is it new or not new?>
 > > > Actually>
 > > > > we>
 > > > > > > > don't>
 > > > > > > > > > > know.>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >> Existing requirement is about all TC must be 
green, so>
 > > > > let's>
 > > > > > > > keep>
 > > > > > > > > it>
 > > > > > > > > > > as>
 > > > > > > > > > > > is.>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >> ср, 23 мая 2018 г. в 17:02, Vladimir Ozerov <>
 > > > > > > > vozerov@gridgain.com>
 > > > > > > > > >:>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Igniters,>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I created review checklist on WIKI [1] and 
also fixed>
 > > > > > related>
 > > > > > > > > pages>
 > > > > > > > > > > > (e.g.>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>> "How To Contribute"). Please let me know if 
you have>
 > > > any>
 > > > > > > > comments>
 > > > > > > > > > > > before>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >> I>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>> go with public announce.>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Vladimir.>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>> [1]>
 > > > > > > > > > > >>
 > > > > > > >>
 > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Review+Checklist>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:10 PM, Vladimir 
Ozerov <>
 > > > > > > > > > > vozerov@gridgain.com>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>> wrote:>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Ilya,>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> We define that exception messages *SHOULD* 
have>
 > > clear>
 > > > > > > > > explanation>
 > > > > > > > > > on>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >> what>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> is wrong. *SHOULD* mean that the rule should 
be>
 > > > followed>
 > > > > > > > unless>
 > > > > > > > > > > there>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >> is>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>> a>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> reason not to follow. In your case you refer 
to some>
 > > > > > > > unexpected>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >> behavior.>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> I.e. an exceptional situation developer is 
not aware>
 > > > of.>
 > > > > > In>
 > > > > > > > this>
 > > > > > > > > > > case>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >> for>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> sure we cannot force contributor to explain 
what is>
 > > > > wrong,>
 > > > > > > > > > because,>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >> well,>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> we don't know. This is why we relaxed the 
rule from>
 > > > > *MUST*>
 > > > > > > to>
 > > > > > > > > > > > *SHOULD*.>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Ilya 
Kasnacheev <>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com> wrote:>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I don't think I quite understand how 
exception>
 > > > > > explanations>
 > > > > > > > > > should>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >> work.>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Imagine we have the following exception:>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> // At least RuntimeException can be thrown 
by the>
 > > > code>
 > > > > > > above>
 > > > > > > > > when>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> GridCacheContext is cleaned and there is>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> // an attempt to use cleaned resources.>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> U.error(log, "Unexpected exception during 
cache>
 > > > > update",>
 > > > > > > e);>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I mean, we genuinely don't know what 
happened here.>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Under new rules, what kind of "workaround" 
would>
 > > that>
 > > > > > > > exception>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >> suggest?>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> "Try turning it off and then back on"?>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> What explanation how to resolve this 
exception can>
 > > we>
 > > > > > > offer?>
 > > > > > > > > > > "Please>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>> write>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> to dev@apache.ignite.org or to Apache JIRA, 
and>
 > > then>
 > > > > > wait>
 > > > > > > > for>
 > > > > > > > > a>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >> release>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> with fix?">
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I'm really confused how we can implement 
1.6 and>
 > > 1.7>
 > > > > when>
 > > > > > > > > dealing>
 > > > > > > > > > > > with>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> messy real-world code.>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Regards,>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> -->
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> 2018-05-10 11:39 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <>
 > > > > > > > > vozerov@gridgain.com>
 > > > > > > > > > >:>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Andrey, Anton, Alex>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Agree, *SHOULD* is more appropriate here.>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Please see latest version below. Does 
anyone want>
 > > to>
 > > > > add>
 > > > > > > or>
 > > > > > > > > > change>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> something? Let's wait for several days for 
more>
 > > > > feedback>
 > > > > > > and>
 > > > > > > > > > then>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> publish>
 > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> and announce t

Re: Ticket review checklist

[Dmitry Pavlov <dp...@gmail.com>]

I also tend to agree about updating checklist

About suite timeouts, I suspect there is one problem introduced recently
within 3 days, which caused this mass timeouts.

I hope Igniters will find out reason soon. In relation to compute we have
only 2 possible cause:
Ivan Daschinskiy (idaschinskiy) 2 files  IGNITE-8869   Fixed
PartitionsExchangeOnDiscoveryHistoryOverflowTest hanging
Signed-off-by: Andrey Gura <ag...@apache.org> ···

Dmitriy Govorukhin (dgovorukhin) 12 files IGNITE-8827  Disable WAL during
apply updates on recovery

I guess if we fix this reason we will fix 10 suites more
References:
https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_ComputeGrid&tab=buildTypeHistoryList&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E


пн, 9 июл. 2018 г. в 22:29, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:

> Sounds reasonable.
> I've satrted Data Structures suite hang investigation [1].
>
> Igniters, especially commiters,
> I know, you're busy, but it will be a great help to the project in case you
> fix at least one hang per person.
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8783
>
> пн, 9 июл. 2018 г. в 19:24, Maxim Muzafarov <ma...@gmail.com>:
>
> > Hi Igniters,
> >
> > Let's back to discussion of review checklist. Can we add more
> clarification
> > about running all suites on TeamCity?
> >
> > My suggestion is: “All test suites MUST be run on TeamCity [3] before
> merge
> > to master, there MUST NOT be any test failures * and any tests\suites
> with
> > “execution timeouts” *. Not important test failures should be muted and
> > handled according to [4] process.”
> >
> > As you can see we have stable “Execution timeouts” for
> > “Activate\Deactiveate Cluster” test suite since 16-th June. How can we be
> > sure in this case that new changes would not break up old functionality?
> >
> > From my point, all new changes MUST NOT be merged to master util we will
> > fix all execution timeouts for suites. Even if current changes are not
> > related to these timeouts.
> >
> > [1]
> >
> >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_ActivateDeactivateCluster&tab=buildTypeHistoryList&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E
> >
> >
> > пн, 4 июн. 2018 г. в 15:56, Dmitry Pavlov <dp...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > Requirement of green TC for each PR is community rule, not my.
> > >
> > > I'll answer ro another question, what should we do with test failure:
> > > "Ideally - fix, but at least mute test and create ticket. "
> > >
> > > May be it's time to formalize Make TC Green Again process in details,
> so
> > > let me share my draft.
> > >
> > > If Igniter see test failure (in master, in release bracnh, etc), he
> > should
> > > consider following steps:
> > >
> > >    - If your changes can led to this failure(s), please create issue
> with
> > >    label MakeTeamCityGreenAgain and assign it to you.
> > >       - If you have fix, please set ticket to PA state and write to dev
> > >       list fix is ready.
> > >       - For case fix will require some time please mute test and set
> > label
> > >       Muted_Test to issue
> > >    - If you know which change caused failure please contact change
> author
> > >    directly.
> > >    - If you don't know which change caused failure please send message
> to
> > >    dev list to find out
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > пн, 4 июн. 2018 г. в 15:27, Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>:
> > >
> > > > Dmitry,
> > > >
> > > > My question was how to proceed with your rules. Could you please
> > clarify?
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 2:52 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov.spb@gmail.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Vladimir, I mean strict definition, how much previous runs should
> > > > > contributor consider? What if test was failed by infrastructure
> > reason
> > > in
> > > > > master previously, how can contributor be sure test failure !=
> broken
> > > > code
> > > > > in PR? In this case it should be double checked by
> > > contributor/reviewer.
> > > > > I'm sure nobody can give strict definition of 'new' failure.
> > > > >
> > > > > Flaky tests detected by TC may be taken into account in check-list,
> > > > because
> > > > > contributor can check if failure is flaky. But again, not all tests
> > > with
> > > > > floating failure is detected by TC as flaky.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't understand what problem will be solved if we soften current
> > > > > requirement with 'new' test? Everybody will continue to complain
> they
> > > > PR's
> > > > > test failures is not `new`. So let's keep it as is.
> > > > >
> > > > > пн, 4 июн. 2018 г. в 14:46, Vladimir Ozerov <vozerov@gridgain.com
> >:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Dmitry,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > New failure is a failure hasn't happened on previous runs. If it
> do
> > > > > > happened, then contributor should see if it is a flaky or not
> > through
> > > > > local
> > > > > > and TC runs. The same works for timeout suites.
> > > > > > Current statement in "Review Checklist" that there are should be
> no
> > > > > failed
> > > > > > tests is not applicable to real word. Almost every patch is
> pushed
> > to
> > > > > > repository with test failures.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 2:22 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <
> > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Vladimir, could you provide definition what is new failure?
> > how
> > > do
> > > > > you
> > > > > > > know it is new or not?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And please forget for a moment you're Ignite expert & veteran,
> > > > imagine
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > are newcomer.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I can't find any criteria that can be used by newbie to come to
> > the
> > > > > > > conclusion that test is new. Patch is accepted by reviewer, so
> it
> > > > > should
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > up to him to correctly register failures in tickets with
> > > > > > > MakeTeamCityGreenAgain label and mute unimportant tests.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > пн, 4 июн. 2018 г. в 11:32, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > vozerov@gridgain.com
> > > >:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Dmitry,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I still do not see how new patches could be accepted with
> this
> > > > > > > requirement
> > > > > > > > in place. Consider the following case: I created a patch and
> > run
> > > it
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > TC,
> > > > > > > > observed N failures, verified through TC history that none if
> > > them
> > > > > are
> > > > > > > new.
> > > > > > > > Am I eligible to push the commit?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 3:11 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <
> > > > > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Petr, good point. It is more intuitive, we should mark test
> > we
> > > > can
> > > > > > > ignore
> > > > > > > > > by mute.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So Vladimir, you or other Ignite veteran can mute test, if
> > can
> > > > say
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > not important.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > чт, 24 мая 2018 г. в 15:07, Petr Ivanov <
> mr.weider@gmail.com
> > >:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Why cannot we mute (and file corresponding tickets) all
> > test
> > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > > > (including flaky) to some date and start initiative Green
> > TC?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On 24 May 2018, at 15:04, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > > > vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Dmitry,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > We cannot add this requirements, because we do have
> > > failures
> > > > on
> > > > > > TC.
> > > > > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > > > > requirement implies that all development would stop
> until
> > > TC
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > green.
> > > > > > > > > > > We never had old requirement work, neither we need to
> > > enforce
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > now.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 2:59 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> 3.c
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>   1. All test suites *MUST* be run on TeamCity [3]
> > before
> > > > > merge
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > master,
> > > > > > > > > > >>   there *MUST NOT* be any test failures
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> 'New' word should be removed because we cant separate
> > > `new`
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > `non
> > > > > > > > > > new`
> > > > > > > > > > >> failures.
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> Let's imagine example, we have 50 green runs in
> master.
> > > And
> > > > PR
> > > > > > > > Run-All
> > > > > > > > > > >> contains this test failed. Is it new or not new?
> > Actually
> > > we
> > > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > > know.
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> Existing requirement is about all TC must be green, so
> > > let's
> > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > is.
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> ср, 23 мая 2018 г. в 17:02, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > > > > vozerov@gridgain.com
> > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> I created review checklist on WIKI [1] and also fixed
> > > > related
> > > > > > > pages
> > > > > > > > > > (e.g.
> > > > > > > > > > >>> "How To Contribute"). Please let me know if you have
> > any
> > > > > > comments
> > > > > > > > > > before
> > > > > > > > > > >> I
> > > > > > > > > > >>> go with public announce.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> Vladimir.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> [1]
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Review+Checklist
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:10 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > > > > > > > vozerov@gridgain.com
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> Ilya,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> We define that exception messages *SHOULD* have
> clear
> > > > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > >> what
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> is wrong. *SHOULD* mean that the rule should be
> > followed
> > > > > > unless
> > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > >> is
> > > > > > > > > > >>> a
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> reason not to follow. In your case you refer to some
> > > > > > unexpected
> > > > > > > > > > >> behavior.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> I.e. an exceptional situation developer is not aware
> > of.
> > > > In
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> sure we cannot force contributor to explain what is
> > > wrong,
> > > > > > > > because,
> > > > > > > > > > >> well,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> we don't know. This is why we relaxed the rule from
> > > *MUST*
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > *SHOULD*.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Ilya Kasnacheev <
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I don't think I quite understand how exception
> > > > explanations
> > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > >> work.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Imagine we have the following exception:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> // At least RuntimeException can be thrown by the
> > code
> > > > > above
> > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> GridCacheContext is cleaned and there is
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> // an attempt to use cleaned resources.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> U.error(log, "Unexpected exception during cache
> > > update",
> > > > > e);
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I mean, we genuinely don't know what happened here.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Under new rules, what kind of "workaround" would
> that
> > > > > > exception
> > > > > > > > > > >> suggest?
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> "Try turning it off and then back on"?
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> What explanation how to resolve this exception can
> we
> > > > > offer?
> > > > > > > > > "Please
> > > > > > > > > > >>> write
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> to dev@apache.ignite.org or to Apache JIRA, and
> then
> > > > wait
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > >> release
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> with fix?"
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I'm really confused how we can implement 1.6 and
> 1.7
> > > when
> > > > > > > dealing
> > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> messy real-world code.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> 2018-05-10 11:39 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > > > > > vozerov@gridgain.com
> > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Andrey, Anton, Alex
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Agree, *SHOULD* is more appropriate here.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Please see latest version below. Does anyone want
> to
> > > add
> > > > > or
> > > > > > > > change
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> something? Let's wait for several days for more
> > > feedback
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> publish
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> and announce this list. Note that it would not be
> > > carved
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > stone
> > > > > > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > > > > >>> we
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> will be able to change it at any time if needed.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 1) API
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 1.1) API compatibility *MUST* be maintained
> between
> > > > minor
> > > > > > > > > releases.
> > > > > > > > > > >> Do
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> not
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> remove existing methods or change their
> signatures,
> > > > > > deprecate
> > > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> instead
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 1.2) Default behaviour "SHOULD NOT* be changed
> > between
> > > > > minor
> > > > > > > > > > >> releases,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> unless absolutely needed. If change is made, it
> > *MUST*
> > > > be
> > > > > > > > > described
> > > > > > > > > > >> in
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> "Migration Guide"
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 1.3) New operation *MUST* be well-documented in
> code
> > > > > > (javadoc,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> dotnetdoc):
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> documentation must contain method's purpose,
> > > description
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > >> parameters
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> how their values affect the outcome, description
> of
> > > > return
> > > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> it's
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> default, behavior in negative cases, interaction
> > with
> > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > > >> operations
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> components
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 1.4) API parity between Java and .NET platforms
> > > *SHOULD*
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > >> maintained
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> when
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> operation makes sense on both platforms. If method
> > > > cannot
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> implemented in
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> a platform immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be
> > > > created
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > linked
> > > > > > > > > > >>> to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> current ticket
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 1.5) API parity between thin clients (Java, .NET)
> > > > *SHOULD*
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > >>> maintained
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> when operation makes sense on several clients. If
> > > method
> > > > > > > cannot
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> implemented in a client immediately, new JIRA
> ticket
> > > > > *MUST*
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > >> created
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> linked to current ticket
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user **SHOULD**
> have
> > > > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > > >>> to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> resolve, workaround or debug an error
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 2) Compatibility
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 2.1) Persistence backward compatibility *MUST* be
> > > > > maintained
> > > > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> minor
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> releases. It should be possible to start newer
> > version
> > > > on
> > > > > > data
> > > > > > > > > files
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> created by the previous version
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 2.2) Thin client forward and backward
> compatibility
> > > > > *SHOULD*
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> maintained
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> between two consecutive minor releases. If
> > > compatibility
> > > > > > > cannot
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration
> > Guide"
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 2.3) JDBC and ODBC forward and backward
> > compatibility
> > > > > > *SHOULD*
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> maintained between two consecutive minor releases.
> > If
> > > > > > > > > compatibility
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> cannot
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> be maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration
> > > > Guide"
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 3) Tests
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 3.1) New functionality *MUST* be covered with unit
> > > tests
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > > both
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> positive
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> and negative use cases
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 3.2) All test suites *MUST* be run before merge to
> > > > > > > master..There
> > > > > > > > > > >>> *MUST*
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> no new test failures
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 4) Code style *MUST* be followed as per Ignite's
> > > Coding
> > > > > > > > Guidelines
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Vladimir.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 1:05 PM, Andrey Kuznetsov <
> > > > > > > > > stkuzma@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Anton,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I agree, *MUST* for exception reasons and
> *SHOULD*
> > > for
> > > > > ways
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> resolution
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> sound clearer.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> 2018-05-08 12:56 GMT+03:00 Anton Vinogradov <
> > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Andrey,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> How about
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user *MUST* have
> > > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> workaround
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> and contain original error.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> All exceptions thrown to a user *SHOULD* have
> > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> resolve
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> if
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> possible.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> ?
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> вт, 8 мая 2018 г. в 12:26, Andrey Kuznetsov <
> > > > > > > > stkuzma@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > >>> :
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Vladimir, checklist looks pleasant enough for
> me.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> I'd like to suggest one minor change. In 1.6
> > *MUST*
> > > > > seems
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >> be
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> too
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> strict,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> *SHOULD* would be enough. It can be frustrating
> > for
> > > > API
> > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > > >> if
> > > > > > > > > > >>> I
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> explain
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> how to fix NPEs in a trivial way, for example.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 2018-05-08 11:34 GMT+03:00 Anton Vinogradov <
> > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Alex,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> It is not sounds like that, obviously.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Tests should cover all negative and positive
> > > cases.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> You should add enough tests to cover all
> cases.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Sometimes one test can cover more than one
> case,
> > > so
> > > > > two
> > > > > > > > > > >> tests
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> *CAN*
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> partially check same things.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> In case some cases already covered you should
> > not
> > > > > create
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> duplicates.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> вт, 8 мая 2018 г. в 10:19, Александр
> Меньшиков <
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> sharplermc@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> :
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Vladimir, the 3.1 is a bit unclear for me.
> > Which
> > > > code
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> coverage is
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> acceptable? Now it sounds like two tests are
> > > enough
> > > > > > (one
> > > > > > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> positive
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> one for negative cases).
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> 2018-05-07 23:09 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan
> <
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Is this list on the Wiki?
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 7:26 AM, Vladimir
> > Ozerov
> > > <
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the checklist I have at the moment.
> > > > Please
> > > > > > let
> > > > > > > > > > >>> me
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> know
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> if
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> you
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> any comments on existing items, or want to
> > add
> > > or
> > > > > > > > > > >> remove
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> anything.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> It
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> looks
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> like we may have not only strict rules, but
> > > *nice
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >>> have*
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> points
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> here
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> as
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> well with help of *MUST*, *SHOULD* and
> *MAY*
> > > > words
> > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > >>> per
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> RFC2119
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [1].
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> So
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> please feel free to suggest optional items
> as
> > > > well.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) API
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.1) API compatibility *MUST* be maintained
> > > > between
> > > > > > > > > > >>> minor
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> releases.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Do
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> remove existing methods or change their
> > > > signatures,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> deprecate
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> them
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> instead
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.2) Default behaviour "SHOULD NOT* be
> > changed
> > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> minor
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> releases,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> unless absolutely needed. If change is
> made,
> > it
> > > > > > *MUST*
> > > > > > > > > > >>> be
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> described
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Migration Guide"
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.3) New operation *MUST* be
> well-documented
> > in
> > > > > code
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> (javadoc,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> dotnetdoc):
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> documentation must contain method's
> purpose,
> > > > > > > > > > >> description
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> of
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> parameters
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> how their values affect the outcome,
> > > description
> > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > >>> return
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> value
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> it's
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> default, behavior in negative cases,
> > > interaction
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> other
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> operations
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> components
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.4) API parity between Java and .NET
> > platforms
> > > > > > > > > > >> *SHOULD*
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> maintained
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> when
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> operation makes sense on both platforms. If
> > > > method
> > > > > > > > > > >>> cannot
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> implemented
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a platform immediately, new JIRA ticket
> > *MUST*
> > > be
> > > > > > > > > > >>> created
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> linked
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> current ticket
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.5) API parity between thin clients (Java,
> > > .NET)
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> *SHOULD* be
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> maintained
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> when operation makes sense on several
> > clients.
> > > If
> > > > > > > > > > >> method
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> cannot
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> implemented in a client immediately, new
> JIRA
> > > > > ticket
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> *MUST*
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> created
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> linked to current ticket
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user *MUST*
> > > have
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> explanation
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> how
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> resolve, workaround or debug an error
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Compatibility
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.1) Persistence backward compatibility
> > *MUST*
> > > be
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> maintained
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> between
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> minor
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> releases. It should be possible to start
> > newer
> > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > > > >>> on
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> data
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> files
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> created by the previous version
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.2) Thin client forward and backward
> > > > compatibility
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> *SHOULD*
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> maintained
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> between two consecutive minor releases. If
> > > > > > > > > > >> compatibility
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> cannot
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> maintained it *MUST* be described in
> > "Migration
> > > > > > Guide"
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.3) JDBC and ODBC forward and backward
> > > > > compatibility
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> *SHOULD*
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> maintained between two consecutive minor
> > > > releases.
> > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> compatibility
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> cannot
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> be maintained it *MUST* be described in
> > > > "Migration
> > > > > > > > > > >>> Guide"
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) Tests
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.1) New functionality *MUST* be covered
> with
> > > > unit
> > > > > > > > > > >> tests
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> for
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> both
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> positive
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and negative use cases
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.2) All test suites *MUST* be run before
> > merge
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> master..There
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> *MUST*
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> no new test failures
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 4) Code style *MUST* be followed as per
> > > Ignite's
> > > > > > > > > > >> Coding
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Guidelines
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Vladimir.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Vladimir
> > > Ozerov <
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Dmitry,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I'll do that in the nearest days.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Dmitry
> > > Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters, the idea was related to small
> > > > > > > > > > >> refactorings
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> co-located
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> with
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> main
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Main change itself indicates that
> existing
> > > code
> > > > > did
> > > > > > > > > > >>> not
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> meet
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> criteria
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of practice. Approving of standalone
> > > > refactorings
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> instead
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> contradicts
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> principle don't touch if it works. So I
> > still
> > > > > like
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> idea of
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> co-located
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes improving code, javadocs, style,
> > etc.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But let's not argue about this point now,
> > > let's
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> summarize
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> undisputed
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> points and add it to the wiki. Vladimir,
> > > would
> > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> please
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> do
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> it?
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 25 апр. 2018 г. в 16:42, Nikolay
> > Izhikov
> > > <
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> nizhikov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with Vova.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't fix if it works!
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you 100% sure then it a useful
> addition
> > > to
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> product
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> -
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> just
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> make
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate ticket.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> В Ср, 25/04/2018 в 11:44 +0300, Vladimir
> > > > Ozerov
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> пишет:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guys,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem with in-place refactorings
> is
> > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > >>> you
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> increase
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> affected
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scope.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not uncommon to break
> compatibility
> > > or
> > > > > > > > > > >>> public
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> contracts
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> minor things. E.g. recently we decided
> > drop
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> org.jsr166
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> package
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> favor
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Java 8 classes. Innocent change.
> Result -
> > > > > > > > > > >> broken
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> storage.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Another
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is conflicts. It is not uncommon to
> have
> > > > > > > > > > >>> long-lived
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> branches
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> which
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to merge with master over and over
> again.
> > > > And a
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> lot of
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> refactorings
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conflicts. It is much easier to resolve
> > > them
> > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > >>> you
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> know
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> logic
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affected as opposed to cases when you
> > need
> > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> resolve
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> both
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> renames
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> method extractions along with
> > > business-logic
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> changes.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to repeat - if you have a time
> > for
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> refactoring
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> then
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> you
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitely
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a time to extract these changes to
> > > > > > > > > > >> separate
> > > > > > > > > > >>> PR
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> submit a
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ticket. I am quite understand what "low
> > > > > > > > > > >> priority"
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> do
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> you
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> mean
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> if
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> you
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> refactorings on your own.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 10:52 PM,
> Andrey
> > > > > > > > > > >>> Kuznetsov
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> <
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> stkuzma@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once again, I beg for "small
> refactoring
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> permission"
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> a
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> checklist.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As of
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> today, separate tickets for small
> > > > > > > > > > >> refactorings
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> has
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> lowest
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> priority,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they neither fix any flaw nor add new
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> functionality.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Also,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attempts to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make issue-related code safer /
> cleaner
> > /
> > > > > > > > > > >> more
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> readable
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> "real"
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pull
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requests are typically rejected, since
> > > they
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> contradict
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> our
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> current
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guidelines.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I understand this will require a bit
> > more
> > > > > > > > > > >>> effort
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> from
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committer/maintainer,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but otherwise we will get constantly
> > > > > > > > > > >> degrading
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> code
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> quality.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018-04-24 18:52 GMT+03:00 Eduard
> > > Shangareev
> > > > > > > > > > >> <
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eduard.shangareev@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vladimir,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am not talking about
> > > > > > > > > > >> massive/sophisticated
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> refactoring.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> But
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that ask to extract some methods
> should
> > > be
> > > > > > > > > > >> OK
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> do
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> without
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> an
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extra
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ticket.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A checklist shouldn't be necessarily
> a
> > > set
> > > > > > > > > > >> of
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> certain
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> rules
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> but
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could include suggestion and
> reminders.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 6:39 PM,
> > Vladimir
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Ozerov <
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ed,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Refactoring is a separate task. If
> you
> > > > > > > > > > >>> would
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> like
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> rework
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exchange
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - please do this in a ticket
> "Refactor
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> exchange
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> task",
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> nobody
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this. This is just a matter of
> > creating
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> separate
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> ticket
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one have a time for refactoring, it
> > > > > > > > > > >> should
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> not
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> a
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> problem
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> him to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spend several minutes on JIRA and
> > > GitHub.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As far as documentation - what you
> > > > > > > > > > >> describe
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> is
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> normal
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> review
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reviewer might want to ask
> contributor
> > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >>> fix
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> something.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Checklist
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different thing - this is a set of
> > rules
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> which
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> must
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> followed
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do not understand how you can
> define
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> documentation
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checklist.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Same problem with logging - what is
> > > > > > > > > > >>> "enough"?
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 4:51 PM,
> > Eduard
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Shangareev <
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't understand why you are so
> > > > > > > > > > >> against
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> refactoring.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Code already smells like hell.
> > Methods
> > > > > > > > > > >>> 200+
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> line
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> normal.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Exchange
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is asking to be separated on
> several
> > > > > > > > > > >> one.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Transaction
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> code
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> few people.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we separate refactoring from
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> development it
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> would
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> mean
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no one
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do it.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Documentation.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everything which was asked by
> > reviewers
> > > > > > > > > > >>> to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> clarify
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> idea
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should be
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reflected
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the code.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) Logging.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Logging should be enough to
> > > > > > > > > > >> troubleshoot
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> problem
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> if
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comes
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user-list with an issue in the
> code.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 7:06 PM,
> > Dmitry
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 to idea of checklist.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 to refactoring and documenting
> > > > > > > > > > >> code
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> related
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ticket
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +/-20
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOC
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we start to do it as part of
> our
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> regular
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> contribution,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better, it would became common
> > > > > > > > > > >> practice
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> part
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Apache
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> development culure.
> > > > > > > > > >

Re: Ticket review checklist

[Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>]

Sounds reasonable.
I've satrted Data Structures suite hang investigation [1].

Igniters, especially commiters,
I know, you're busy, but it will be a great help to the project in case you
fix at least one hang per person.

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8783

пн, 9 июл. 2018 г. в 19:24, Maxim Muzafarov <ma...@gmail.com>:

> Hi Igniters,
>
> Let's back to discussion of review checklist. Can we add more clarification
> about running all suites on TeamCity?
>
> My suggestion is: “All test suites MUST be run on TeamCity [3] before merge
> to master, there MUST NOT be any test failures * and any tests\suites with
> “execution timeouts” *. Not important test failures should be muted and
> handled according to [4] process.”
>
> As you can see we have stable “Execution timeouts” for
> “Activate\Deactiveate Cluster” test suite since 16-th June. How can we be
> sure in this case that new changes would not break up old functionality?
>
> From my point, all new changes MUST NOT be merged to master util we will
> fix all execution timeouts for suites. Even if current changes are not
> related to these timeouts.
>
> [1]
>
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_ActivateDeactivateCluster&tab=buildTypeHistoryList&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E
>
>
> пн, 4 июн. 2018 г. в 15:56, Dmitry Pavlov <dp...@gmail.com>:
>
> > Requirement of green TC for each PR is community rule, not my.
> >
> > I'll answer ro another question, what should we do with test failure:
> > "Ideally - fix, but at least mute test and create ticket. "
> >
> > May be it's time to formalize Make TC Green Again process in details, so
> > let me share my draft.
> >
> > If Igniter see test failure (in master, in release bracnh, etc), he
> should
> > consider following steps:
> >
> >    - If your changes can led to this failure(s), please create issue with
> >    label MakeTeamCityGreenAgain and assign it to you.
> >       - If you have fix, please set ticket to PA state and write to dev
> >       list fix is ready.
> >       - For case fix will require some time please mute test and set
> label
> >       Muted_Test to issue
> >    - If you know which change caused failure please contact change author
> >    directly.
> >    - If you don't know which change caused failure please send message to
> >    dev list to find out
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > пн, 4 июн. 2018 г. в 15:27, Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>:
> >
> > > Dmitry,
> > >
> > > My question was how to proceed with your rules. Could you please
> clarify?
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 2:52 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <dp...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Vladimir, I mean strict definition, how much previous runs should
> > > > contributor consider? What if test was failed by infrastructure
> reason
> > in
> > > > master previously, how can contributor be sure test failure != broken
> > > code
> > > > in PR? In this case it should be double checked by
> > contributor/reviewer.
> > > > I'm sure nobody can give strict definition of 'new' failure.
> > > >
> > > > Flaky tests detected by TC may be taken into account in check-list,
> > > because
> > > > contributor can check if failure is flaky. But again, not all tests
> > with
> > > > floating failure is detected by TC as flaky.
> > > >
> > > > I don't understand what problem will be solved if we soften current
> > > > requirement with 'new' test? Everybody will continue to complain they
> > > PR's
> > > > test failures is not `new`. So let's keep it as is.
> > > >
> > > > пн, 4 июн. 2018 г. в 14:46, Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>:
> > > >
> > > > > Dmitry,
> > > > >
> > > > > New failure is a failure hasn't happened on previous runs. If it do
> > > > > happened, then contributor should see if it is a flaky or not
> through
> > > > local
> > > > > and TC runs. The same works for timeout suites.
> > > > > Current statement in "Review Checklist" that there are should be no
> > > > failed
> > > > > tests is not applicable to real word. Almost every patch is pushed
> to
> > > > > repository with test failures.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 2:22 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <
> dpavlov.spb@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Vladimir, could you provide definition what is new failure?
> how
> > do
> > > > you
> > > > > > know it is new or not?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And please forget for a moment you're Ignite expert & veteran,
> > > imagine
> > > > > you
> > > > > > are newcomer.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I can't find any criteria that can be used by newbie to come to
> the
> > > > > > conclusion that test is new. Patch is accepted by reviewer, so it
> > > > should
> > > > > be
> > > > > > up to him to correctly register failures in tickets with
> > > > > > MakeTeamCityGreenAgain label and mute unimportant tests.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > пн, 4 июн. 2018 г. в 11:32, Vladimir Ozerov <
> vozerov@gridgain.com
> > >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dmitry,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I still do not see how new patches could be accepted with this
> > > > > > requirement
> > > > > > > in place. Consider the following case: I created a patch and
> run
> > it
> > > > on
> > > > > > TC,
> > > > > > > observed N failures, verified through TC history that none if
> > them
> > > > are
> > > > > > new.
> > > > > > > Am I eligible to push the commit?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 3:11 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <
> > > > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Petr, good point. It is more intuitive, we should mark test
> we
> > > can
> > > > > > ignore
> > > > > > > > by mute.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So Vladimir, you or other Ignite veteran can mute test, if
> can
> > > say
> > > > it
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > not important.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > чт, 24 мая 2018 г. в 15:07, Petr Ivanov <mr.weider@gmail.com
> >:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Why cannot we mute (and file corresponding tickets) all
> test
> > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > > (including flaky) to some date and start initiative Green
> TC?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On 24 May 2018, at 15:04, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > > vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Dmitry,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > We cannot add this requirements, because we do have
> > failures
> > > on
> > > > > TC.
> > > > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > > > requirement implies that all development would stop until
> > TC
> > > is
> > > > > > > green.
> > > > > > > > > > We never had old requirement work, neither we need to
> > enforce
> > > > it
> > > > > > now.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 2:59 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <
> > > > > > > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> 3.c
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>   1. All test suites *MUST* be run on TeamCity [3]
> before
> > > > merge
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > master,
> > > > > > > > > >>   there *MUST NOT* be any test failures
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> 'New' word should be removed because we cant separate
> > `new`
> > > > and
> > > > > > `non
> > > > > > > > > new`
> > > > > > > > > >> failures.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Let's imagine example, we have 50 green runs in master.
> > And
> > > PR
> > > > > > > Run-All
> > > > > > > > > >> contains this test failed. Is it new or not new?
> Actually
> > we
> > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > know.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Existing requirement is about all TC must be green, so
> > let's
> > > > > keep
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > is.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> ср, 23 мая 2018 г. в 17:02, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > > > vozerov@gridgain.com
> > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>> Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> I created review checklist on WIKI [1] and also fixed
> > > related
> > > > > > pages
> > > > > > > > > (e.g.
> > > > > > > > > >>> "How To Contribute"). Please let me know if you have
> any
> > > > > comments
> > > > > > > > > before
> > > > > > > > > >> I
> > > > > > > > > >>> go with public announce.
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> Vladimir.
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> [1]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Review+Checklist
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:10 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > > > > > > vozerov@gridgain.com
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Ilya,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> We define that exception messages *SHOULD* have clear
> > > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > >> what
> > > > > > > > > >>>> is wrong. *SHOULD* mean that the rule should be
> followed
> > > > > unless
> > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > >> is
> > > > > > > > > >>> a
> > > > > > > > > >>>> reason not to follow. In your case you refer to some
> > > > > unexpected
> > > > > > > > > >> behavior.
> > > > > > > > > >>>> I.e. an exceptional situation developer is not aware
> of.
> > > In
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > > >>>> sure we cannot force contributor to explain what is
> > wrong,
> > > > > > > because,
> > > > > > > > > >> well,
> > > > > > > > > >>>> we don't know. This is why we relaxed the rule from
> > *MUST*
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > > *SHOULD*.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Ilya Kasnacheev <
> > > > > > > > > >>>> ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> I don't think I quite understand how exception
> > > explanations
> > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > >> work.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> Imagine we have the following exception:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> // At least RuntimeException can be thrown by the
> code
> > > > above
> > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> GridCacheContext is cleaned and there is
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> // an attempt to use cleaned resources.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> U.error(log, "Unexpected exception during cache
> > update",
> > > > e);
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> I mean, we genuinely don't know what happened here.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> Under new rules, what kind of "workaround" would that
> > > > > exception
> > > > > > > > > >> suggest?
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> "Try turning it off and then back on"?
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> What explanation how to resolve this exception can we
> > > > offer?
> > > > > > > > "Please
> > > > > > > > > >>> write
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> to dev@apache.ignite.org or to Apache JIRA, and then
> > > wait
> > > > > for
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > >> release
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> with fix?"
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> I'm really confused how we can implement 1.6 and 1.7
> > when
> > > > > > dealing
> > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> messy real-world code.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> Regards,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> 2018-05-10 11:39 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > > > > vozerov@gridgain.com
> > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Andrey, Anton, Alex
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Agree, *SHOULD* is more appropriate here.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Please see latest version below. Does anyone want to
> > add
> > > > or
> > > > > > > change
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> something? Let's wait for several days for more
> > feedback
> > > > and
> > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> publish
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> and announce this list. Note that it would not be
> > carved
> > > > in
> > > > > > > stone
> > > > > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > > > >>> we
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> will be able to change it at any time if needed.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 1) API
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 1.1) API compatibility *MUST* be maintained between
> > > minor
> > > > > > > > releases.
> > > > > > > > > >> Do
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> not
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> remove existing methods or change their signatures,
> > > > > deprecate
> > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> instead
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 1.2) Default behaviour "SHOULD NOT* be changed
> between
> > > > minor
> > > > > > > > > >> releases,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> unless absolutely needed. If change is made, it
> *MUST*
> > > be
> > > > > > > > described
> > > > > > > > > >> in
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> "Migration Guide"
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 1.3) New operation *MUST* be well-documented in code
> > > > > (javadoc,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> dotnetdoc):
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> documentation must contain method's purpose,
> > description
> > > > of
> > > > > > > > > >> parameters
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> how their values affect the outcome, description of
> > > return
> > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> it's
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> default, behavior in negative cases, interaction
> with
> > > > other
> > > > > > > > > >> operations
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> components
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 1.4) API parity between Java and .NET platforms
> > *SHOULD*
> > > > be
> > > > > > > > > >> maintained
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> when
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> operation makes sense on both platforms. If method
> > > cannot
> > > > be
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> implemented in
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> a platform immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be
> > > created
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > linked
> > > > > > > > > >>> to
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> current ticket
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 1.5) API parity between thin clients (Java, .NET)
> > > *SHOULD*
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > >>> maintained
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> when operation makes sense on several clients. If
> > method
> > > > > > cannot
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> implemented in a client immediately, new JIRA ticket
> > > > *MUST*
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > >> created
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> linked to current ticket
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user **SHOULD** have
> > > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > >>> to
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> resolve, workaround or debug an error
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 2) Compatibility
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 2.1) Persistence backward compatibility *MUST* be
> > > > maintained
> > > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> minor
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> releases. It should be possible to start newer
> version
> > > on
> > > > > data
> > > > > > > > files
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> created by the previous version
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 2.2) Thin client forward and backward compatibility
> > > > *SHOULD*
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> maintained
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> between two consecutive minor releases. If
> > compatibility
> > > > > > cannot
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration
> Guide"
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 2.3) JDBC and ODBC forward and backward
> compatibility
> > > > > *SHOULD*
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> maintained between two consecutive minor releases.
> If
> > > > > > > > compatibility
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> cannot
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> be maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration
> > > Guide"
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 3) Tests
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 3.1) New functionality *MUST* be covered with unit
> > tests
> > > > for
> > > > > > > both
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> positive
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> and negative use cases
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 3.2) All test suites *MUST* be run before merge to
> > > > > > master..There
> > > > > > > > > >>> *MUST*
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> no new test failures
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 4) Code style *MUST* be followed as per Ignite's
> > Coding
> > > > > > > Guidelines
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Vladimir.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 1:05 PM, Andrey Kuznetsov <
> > > > > > > > stkuzma@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Anton,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I agree, *MUST* for exception reasons and *SHOULD*
> > for
> > > > ways
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> resolution
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> sound clearer.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> 2018-05-08 12:56 GMT+03:00 Anton Vinogradov <
> > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Andrey,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> How about
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user *MUST* have
> > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> workaround
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> and contain original error.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> All exceptions thrown to a user *SHOULD* have
> > > > explanation
> > > > > > how
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> resolve
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> if
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> possible.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> ?
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> вт, 8 мая 2018 г. в 12:26, Andrey Kuznetsov <
> > > > > > > stkuzma@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > >>> :
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Vladimir, checklist looks pleasant enough for me.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> I'd like to suggest one minor change. In 1.6
> *MUST*
> > > > seems
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >> be
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> too
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> strict,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> *SHOULD* would be enough. It can be frustrating
> for
> > > API
> > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > >> if
> > > > > > > > > >>> I
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> explain
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> how to fix NPEs in a trivial way, for example.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 2018-05-08 11:34 GMT+03:00 Anton Vinogradov <
> > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Alex,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> It is not sounds like that, obviously.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Tests should cover all negative and positive
> > cases.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> You should add enough tests to cover all cases.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Sometimes one test can cover more than one case,
> > so
> > > > two
> > > > > > > > > >> tests
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> *CAN*
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> partially check same things.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> In case some cases already covered you should
> not
> > > > create
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> duplicates.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> вт, 8 мая 2018 г. в 10:19, Александр Меньшиков <
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> sharplermc@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> :
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Vladimir, the 3.1 is a bit unclear for me.
> Which
> > > code
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> coverage is
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> acceptable? Now it sounds like two tests are
> > enough
> > > > > (one
> > > > > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> positive
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> one for negative cases).
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> 2018-05-07 23:09 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Is this list on the Wiki?
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 7:26 AM, Vladimir
> Ozerov
> > <
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the checklist I have at the moment.
> > > Please
> > > > > let
> > > > > > > > > >>> me
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> know
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> if
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> you
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> any comments on existing items, or want to
> add
> > or
> > > > > > > > > >> remove
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> anything.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> It
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> looks
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> like we may have not only strict rules, but
> > *nice
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >>> have*
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> points
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> here
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> as
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> well with help of *MUST*, *SHOULD* and *MAY*
> > > words
> > > > as
> > > > > > > > > >>> per
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> RFC2119
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [1].
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> So
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> please feel free to suggest optional items as
> > > well.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) API
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.1) API compatibility *MUST* be maintained
> > > between
> > > > > > > > > >>> minor
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> releases.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Do
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> remove existing methods or change their
> > > signatures,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> deprecate
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> them
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> instead
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.2) Default behaviour "SHOULD NOT* be
> changed
> > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> minor
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> releases,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> unless absolutely needed. If change is made,
> it
> > > > > *MUST*
> > > > > > > > > >>> be
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> described
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Migration Guide"
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.3) New operation *MUST* be well-documented
> in
> > > > code
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> (javadoc,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> dotnetdoc):
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> documentation must contain method's purpose,
> > > > > > > > > >> description
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> of
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> parameters
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> how their values affect the outcome,
> > description
> > > of
> > > > > > > > > >>> return
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> value
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> it's
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> default, behavior in negative cases,
> > interaction
> > > > with
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> other
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> operations
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> components
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.4) API parity between Java and .NET
> platforms
> > > > > > > > > >> *SHOULD*
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> maintained
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> when
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> operation makes sense on both platforms. If
> > > method
> > > > > > > > > >>> cannot
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> implemented
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a platform immediately, new JIRA ticket
> *MUST*
> > be
> > > > > > > > > >>> created
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> linked
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> current ticket
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.5) API parity between thin clients (Java,
> > .NET)
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> *SHOULD* be
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> maintained
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> when operation makes sense on several
> clients.
> > If
> > > > > > > > > >> method
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> cannot
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> implemented in a client immediately, new JIRA
> > > > ticket
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> *MUST*
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> created
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> linked to current ticket
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user *MUST*
> > have
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> explanation
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> how
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> resolve, workaround or debug an error
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Compatibility
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.1) Persistence backward compatibility
> *MUST*
> > be
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> maintained
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> between
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> minor
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> releases. It should be possible to start
> newer
> > > > > version
> > > > > > > > > >>> on
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> data
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> files
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> created by the previous version
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.2) Thin client forward and backward
> > > compatibility
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> *SHOULD*
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> maintained
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> between two consecutive minor releases. If
> > > > > > > > > >> compatibility
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> cannot
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> maintained it *MUST* be described in
> "Migration
> > > > > Guide"
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.3) JDBC and ODBC forward and backward
> > > > compatibility
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> *SHOULD*
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> maintained between two consecutive minor
> > > releases.
> > > > If
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> compatibility
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> cannot
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> be maintained it *MUST* be described in
> > > "Migration
> > > > > > > > > >>> Guide"
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) Tests
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.1) New functionality *MUST* be covered with
> > > unit
> > > > > > > > > >> tests
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> for
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> both
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> positive
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and negative use cases
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.2) All test suites *MUST* be run before
> merge
> > > to
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> master..There
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> *MUST*
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> no new test failures
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 4) Code style *MUST* be followed as per
> > Ignite's
> > > > > > > > > >> Coding
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Guidelines
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Vladimir.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Vladimir
> > Ozerov <
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Dmitry,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I'll do that in the nearest days.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Dmitry
> > Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters, the idea was related to small
> > > > > > > > > >> refactorings
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> co-located
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> with
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> main
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Main change itself indicates that existing
> > code
> > > > did
> > > > > > > > > >>> not
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> meet
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> criteria
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of practice. Approving of standalone
> > > refactorings
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> instead
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> contradicts
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> principle don't touch if it works. So I
> still
> > > > like
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> idea of
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> co-located
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes improving code, javadocs, style,
> etc.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But let's not argue about this point now,
> > let's
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> summarize
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> undisputed
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> points and add it to the wiki. Vladimir,
> > would
> > > > you
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> please
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> do
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> it?
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 25 апр. 2018 г. в 16:42, Nikolay
> Izhikov
> > <
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> nizhikov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with Vova.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't fix if it works!
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you 100% sure then it a useful addition
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> product
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> -
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> just
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> make
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate ticket.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> В Ср, 25/04/2018 в 11:44 +0300, Vladimir
> > > Ozerov
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> пишет:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guys,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem with in-place refactorings is
> > > that
> > > > > > > > > >>> you
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> increase
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> affected
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scope.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not uncommon to break compatibility
> > or
> > > > > > > > > >>> public
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> contracts
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> minor things. E.g. recently we decided
> drop
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> org.jsr166
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> package
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> favor
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Java 8 classes. Innocent change. Result -
> > > > > > > > > >> broken
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> storage.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Another
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is conflicts. It is not uncommon to have
> > > > > > > > > >>> long-lived
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> branches
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> which
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to merge with master over and over again.
> > > And a
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> lot of
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> refactorings
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conflicts. It is much easier to resolve
> > them
> > > if
> > > > > > > > > >>> you
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> know
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> logic
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affected as opposed to cases when you
> need
> > to
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> resolve
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> both
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> renames
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> method extractions along with
> > business-logic
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> changes.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to repeat - if you have a time
> for
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> refactoring
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> then
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> you
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitely
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a time to extract these changes to
> > > > > > > > > >> separate
> > > > > > > > > >>> PR
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> submit a
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ticket. I am quite understand what "low
> > > > > > > > > >> priority"
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> do
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> you
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> mean
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> if
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> you
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> refactorings on your own.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 10:52 PM, Andrey
> > > > > > > > > >>> Kuznetsov
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> <
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> stkuzma@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once again, I beg for "small refactoring
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> permission"
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> a
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> checklist.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As of
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> today, separate tickets for small
> > > > > > > > > >> refactorings
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> has
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> lowest
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> priority,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they neither fix any flaw nor add new
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> functionality.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Also,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attempts to
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make issue-related code safer / cleaner
> /
> > > > > > > > > >> more
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> readable
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> "real"
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pull
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requests are typically rejected, since
> > they
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> contradict
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> our
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> current
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guidelines.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I understand this will require a bit
> more
> > > > > > > > > >>> effort
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> from
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committer/maintainer,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but otherwise we will get constantly
> > > > > > > > > >> degrading
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> code
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> quality.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018-04-24 18:52 GMT+03:00 Eduard
> > Shangareev
> > > > > > > > > >> <
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eduard.shangareev@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vladimir,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am not talking about
> > > > > > > > > >> massive/sophisticated
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> refactoring.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> But
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that ask to extract some methods should
> > be
> > > > > > > > > >> OK
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> do
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> without
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> an
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extra
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ticket.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A checklist shouldn't be necessarily a
> > set
> > > > > > > > > >> of
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> certain
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> rules
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> but
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could include suggestion and reminders.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 6:39 PM,
> Vladimir
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> Ozerov <
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ed,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Refactoring is a separate task. If you
> > > > > > > > > >>> would
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> like
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> rework
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exchange
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - please do this in a ticket "Refactor
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> exchange
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> task",
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> nobody
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this. This is just a matter of
> creating
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> separate
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> ticket
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one have a time for refactoring, it
> > > > > > > > > >> should
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> not
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> a
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> problem
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> him to
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spend several minutes on JIRA and
> > GitHub.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As far as documentation - what you
> > > > > > > > > >> describe
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> is
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> normal
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> review
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reviewer might want to ask contributor
> > to
> > > > > > > > > >>> fix
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> something.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Checklist
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different thing - this is a set of
> rules
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> which
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> must
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> followed
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do not understand how you can define
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> documentation
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checklist.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Same problem with logging - what is
> > > > > > > > > >>> "enough"?
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 4:51 PM,
> Eduard
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Shangareev <
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't understand why you are so
> > > > > > > > > >> against
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> refactoring.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Code already smells like hell.
> Methods
> > > > > > > > > >>> 200+
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> line
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> normal.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Exchange
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is asking to be separated on several
> > > > > > > > > >> one.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Transaction
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> code
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> few people.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we separate refactoring from
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> development it
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> would
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> mean
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no one
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do it.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Documentation.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everything which was asked by
> reviewers
> > > > > > > > > >>> to
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> clarify
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> idea
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should be
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reflected
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the code.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) Logging.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Logging should be enough to
> > > > > > > > > >> troubleshoot
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> problem
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> if
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comes
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user-list with an issue in the code.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 7:06 PM,
> Dmitry
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 to idea of checklist.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 to refactoring and documenting
> > > > > > > > > >> code
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> related
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ticket
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +/-20
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOC
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we start to do it as part of our
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> regular
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> contribution,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better, it would became common
> > > > > > > > > >> practice
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> part
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Apache
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> development culure.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we will hope we will have free
> > > > > > > > > >> time
> > > > > > > > > >>> to
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> submit
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> separate
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patch
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someday
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have patience to complete
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> patch-submission
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> process,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> code
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remain
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undocumented and poor-readable.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sincerely,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пт, 20 апр. 2018 г. в 18:56,
> > > > > > > > > >> Александр
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Меньшиков <
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sharplermc@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4) Metrics.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partially +1
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It makes sense to have some minimal
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> code
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> coverage
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code in
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMHO.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, we can limit the cyclomatic
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> complexity
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> of
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6) Refactoring
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -1
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Re: Ticket review checklist

[Maxim Muzafarov <ma...@gmail.com>]

Hi Igniters,

Let's back to discussion of review checklist. Can we add more clarification
about running all suites on TeamCity?

My suggestion is: “All test suites MUST be run on TeamCity [3] before merge
to master, there MUST NOT be any test failures * and any tests\suites with
“execution timeouts” *. Not important test failures should be muted and
handled according to [4] process.”

As you can see we have stable “Execution timeouts” for
“Activate\Deactiveate Cluster” test suite since 16-th June. How can we be
sure in this case that new changes would not break up old functionality?

From my point, all new changes MUST NOT be merged to master util we will
fix all execution timeouts for suites. Even if current changes are not
related to these timeouts.

[1]
https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_ActivateDeactivateCluster&tab=buildTypeHistoryList&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E


пн, 4 июн. 2018 г. в 15:56, Dmitry Pavlov <dp...@gmail.com>:

> Requirement of green TC for each PR is community rule, not my.
>
> I'll answer ro another question, what should we do with test failure:
> "Ideally - fix, but at least mute test and create ticket. "
>
> May be it's time to formalize Make TC Green Again process in details, so
> let me share my draft.
>
> If Igniter see test failure (in master, in release bracnh, etc), he should
> consider following steps:
>
>    - If your changes can led to this failure(s), please create issue with
>    label MakeTeamCityGreenAgain and assign it to you.
>       - If you have fix, please set ticket to PA state and write to dev
>       list fix is ready.
>       - For case fix will require some time please mute test and set label
>       Muted_Test to issue
>    - If you know which change caused failure please contact change author
>    directly.
>    - If you don't know which change caused failure please send message to
>    dev list to find out
>
>
>
>
> пн, 4 июн. 2018 г. в 15:27, Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>:
>
> > Dmitry,
> >
> > My question was how to proceed with your rules. Could you please clarify?
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 2:52 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <dp...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Vladimir, I mean strict definition, how much previous runs should
> > > contributor consider? What if test was failed by infrastructure reason
> in
> > > master previously, how can contributor be sure test failure != broken
> > code
> > > in PR? In this case it should be double checked by
> contributor/reviewer.
> > > I'm sure nobody can give strict definition of 'new' failure.
> > >
> > > Flaky tests detected by TC may be taken into account in check-list,
> > because
> > > contributor can check if failure is flaky. But again, not all tests
> with
> > > floating failure is detected by TC as flaky.
> > >
> > > I don't understand what problem will be solved if we soften current
> > > requirement with 'new' test? Everybody will continue to complain they
> > PR's
> > > test failures is not `new`. So let's keep it as is.
> > >
> > > пн, 4 июн. 2018 г. в 14:46, Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>:
> > >
> > > > Dmitry,
> > > >
> > > > New failure is a failure hasn't happened on previous runs. If it do
> > > > happened, then contributor should see if it is a flaky or not through
> > > local
> > > > and TC runs. The same works for timeout suites.
> > > > Current statement in "Review Checklist" that there are should be no
> > > failed
> > > > tests is not applicable to real word. Almost every patch is pushed to
> > > > repository with test failures.
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 2:22 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov.spb@gmail.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Vladimir, could you provide definition what is new failure? how
> do
> > > you
> > > > > know it is new or not?
> > > > >
> > > > > And please forget for a moment you're Ignite expert & veteran,
> > imagine
> > > > you
> > > > > are newcomer.
> > > > >
> > > > > I can't find any criteria that can be used by newbie to come to the
> > > > > conclusion that test is new. Patch is accepted by reviewer, so it
> > > should
> > > > be
> > > > > up to him to correctly register failures in tickets with
> > > > > MakeTeamCityGreenAgain label and mute unimportant tests.
> > > > >
> > > > > пн, 4 июн. 2018 г. в 11:32, Vladimir Ozerov <vozerov@gridgain.com
> >:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Dmitry,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I still do not see how new patches could be accepted with this
> > > > > requirement
> > > > > > in place. Consider the following case: I created a patch and run
> it
> > > on
> > > > > TC,
> > > > > > observed N failures, verified through TC history that none if
> them
> > > are
> > > > > new.
> > > > > > Am I eligible to push the commit?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 3:11 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <
> > > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Petr, good point. It is more intuitive, we should mark test we
> > can
> > > > > ignore
> > > > > > > by mute.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So Vladimir, you or other Ignite veteran can mute test, if can
> > say
> > > it
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > not important.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > чт, 24 мая 2018 г. в 15:07, Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Why cannot we mute (and file corresponding tickets) all test
> > > > failures
> > > > > > > > (including flaky) to some date and start initiative Green TC?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 24 May 2018, at 15:04, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Dmitry,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > We cannot add this requirements, because we do have
> failures
> > on
> > > > TC.
> > > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > > requirement implies that all development would stop until
> TC
> > is
> > > > > > green.
> > > > > > > > > We never had old requirement work, neither we need to
> enforce
> > > it
> > > > > now.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 2:59 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <
> > > > > > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> 3.c
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>   1. All test suites *MUST* be run on TeamCity [3] before
> > > merge
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > master,
> > > > > > > > >>   there *MUST NOT* be any test failures
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> 'New' word should be removed because we cant separate
> `new`
> > > and
> > > > > `non
> > > > > > > > new`
> > > > > > > > >> failures.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Let's imagine example, we have 50 green runs in master.
> And
> > PR
> > > > > > Run-All
> > > > > > > > >> contains this test failed. Is it new or not new? Actually
> we
> > > > don't
> > > > > > > know.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Existing requirement is about all TC must be green, so
> let's
> > > > keep
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > is.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> ср, 23 мая 2018 г. в 17:02, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > > vozerov@gridgain.com
> > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>> Igniters,
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> I created review checklist on WIKI [1] and also fixed
> > related
> > > > > pages
> > > > > > > > (e.g.
> > > > > > > > >>> "How To Contribute"). Please let me know if you have any
> > > > comments
> > > > > > > > before
> > > > > > > > >> I
> > > > > > > > >>> go with public announce.
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> Vladimir.
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> [1]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Review+Checklist
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:10 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > > > > > vozerov@gridgain.com
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> Ilya,
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> We define that exception messages *SHOULD* have clear
> > > > > explanation
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > >> what
> > > > > > > > >>>> is wrong. *SHOULD* mean that the rule should be followed
> > > > unless
> > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > >> is
> > > > > > > > >>> a
> > > > > > > > >>>> reason not to follow. In your case you refer to some
> > > > unexpected
> > > > > > > > >> behavior.
> > > > > > > > >>>> I.e. an exceptional situation developer is not aware of.
> > In
> > > > this
> > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > >>>> sure we cannot force contributor to explain what is
> wrong,
> > > > > > because,
> > > > > > > > >> well,
> > > > > > > > >>>> we don't know. This is why we relaxed the rule from
> *MUST*
> > > to
> > > > > > > > *SHOULD*.
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Ilya Kasnacheev <
> > > > > > > > >>>> ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>> I don't think I quite understand how exception
> > explanations
> > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > >> work.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>> Imagine we have the following exception:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>> // At least RuntimeException can be thrown by the code
> > > above
> > > > > when
> > > > > > > > >>>>> GridCacheContext is cleaned and there is
> > > > > > > > >>>>> // an attempt to use cleaned resources.
> > > > > > > > >>>>> U.error(log, "Unexpected exception during cache
> update",
> > > e);
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>> I mean, we genuinely don't know what happened here.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>> Under new rules, what kind of "workaround" would that
> > > > exception
> > > > > > > > >> suggest?
> > > > > > > > >>>>> "Try turning it off and then back on"?
> > > > > > > > >>>>> What explanation how to resolve this exception can we
> > > offer?
> > > > > > > "Please
> > > > > > > > >>> write
> > > > > > > > >>>>> to dev@apache.ignite.org or to Apache JIRA, and then
> > wait
> > > > for
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > >> release
> > > > > > > > >>>>> with fix?"
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>> I'm really confused how we can implement 1.6 and 1.7
> when
> > > > > dealing
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > >>>>> messy real-world code.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>> Regards,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>> --
> > > > > > > > >>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>> 2018-05-10 11:39 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > > > vozerov@gridgain.com
> > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> Andrey, Anton, Alex
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> Agree, *SHOULD* is more appropriate here.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> Please see latest version below. Does anyone want to
> add
> > > or
> > > > > > change
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> something? Let's wait for several days for more
> feedback
> > > and
> > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > >>>>> publish
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> and announce this list. Note that it would not be
> carved
> > > in
> > > > > > stone
> > > > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > > >>> we
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> will be able to change it at any time if needed.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> 1) API
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> 1.1) API compatibility *MUST* be maintained between
> > minor
> > > > > > > releases.
> > > > > > > > >> Do
> > > > > > > > >>>>> not
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> remove existing methods or change their signatures,
> > > > deprecate
> > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > >>>>> instead
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> 1.2) Default behaviour "SHOULD NOT* be changed between
> > > minor
> > > > > > > > >> releases,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> unless absolutely needed. If change is made, it *MUST*
> > be
> > > > > > > described
> > > > > > > > >> in
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> "Migration Guide"
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> 1.3) New operation *MUST* be well-documented in code
> > > > (javadoc,
> > > > > > > > >>>>> dotnetdoc):
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> documentation must contain method's purpose,
> description
> > > of
> > > > > > > > >> parameters
> > > > > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> how their values affect the outcome, description of
> > return
> > > > > value
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >>>>> it's
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> default, behavior in negative cases, interaction with
> > > other
> > > > > > > > >> operations
> > > > > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> components
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> 1.4) API parity between Java and .NET platforms
> *SHOULD*
> > > be
> > > > > > > > >> maintained
> > > > > > > > >>>>> when
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> operation makes sense on both platforms. If method
> > cannot
> > > be
> > > > > > > > >>>>> implemented in
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> a platform immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be
> > created
> > > > and
> > > > > > > linked
> > > > > > > > >>> to
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> current ticket
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> 1.5) API parity between thin clients (Java, .NET)
> > *SHOULD*
> > > > be
> > > > > > > > >>> maintained
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> when operation makes sense on several clients. If
> method
> > > > > cannot
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> implemented in a client immediately, new JIRA ticket
> > > *MUST*
> > > > be
> > > > > > > > >> created
> > > > > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> linked to current ticket
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user **SHOULD** have
> > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > >>> to
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> resolve, workaround or debug an error
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> 2) Compatibility
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> 2.1) Persistence backward compatibility *MUST* be
> > > maintained
> > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > >>>>> minor
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> releases. It should be possible to start newer version
> > on
> > > > data
> > > > > > > files
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> created by the previous version
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> 2.2) Thin client forward and backward compatibility
> > > *SHOULD*
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > >>>>> maintained
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> between two consecutive minor releases. If
> compatibility
> > > > > cannot
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> 2.3) JDBC and ODBC forward and backward compatibility
> > > > *SHOULD*
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> maintained between two consecutive minor releases. If
> > > > > > > compatibility
> > > > > > > > >>>>> cannot
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> be maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration
> > Guide"
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> 3) Tests
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> 3.1) New functionality *MUST* be covered with unit
> tests
> > > for
> > > > > > both
> > > > > > > > >>>>> positive
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> and negative use cases
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> 3.2) All test suites *MUST* be run before merge to
> > > > > master..There
> > > > > > > > >>> *MUST*
> > > > > > > > >>>>> be
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> no new test failures
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> 4) Code style *MUST* be followed as per Ignite's
> Coding
> > > > > > Guidelines
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> Vladimir.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 1:05 PM, Andrey Kuznetsov <
> > > > > > > stkuzma@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Anton,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I agree, *MUST* for exception reasons and *SHOULD*
> for
> > > ways
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > >>>>> resolution
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> sound clearer.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> 2018-05-08 12:56 GMT+03:00 Anton Vinogradov <
> > > av@apache.org
> > > > >:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Andrey,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> How about
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user *MUST* have
> > > > explanation
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> workaround
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> and contain original error.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> All exceptions thrown to a user *SHOULD* have
> > > explanation
> > > > > how
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> resolve
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> if
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> possible.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> ?
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> вт, 8 мая 2018 г. в 12:26, Andrey Kuznetsov <
> > > > > > stkuzma@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >>> :
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Vladimir, checklist looks pleasant enough for me.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> I'd like to suggest one minor change. In 1.6 *MUST*
> > > seems
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> be
> > > > > > > > >>>>> too
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> strict,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> *SHOULD* would be enough. It can be frustrating for
> > API
> > > > > user
> > > > > > > > >> if
> > > > > > > > >>> I
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> explain
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> how to fix NPEs in a trivial way, for example.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 2018-05-08 11:34 GMT+03:00 Anton Vinogradov <
> > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Alex,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> It is not sounds like that, obviously.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Tests should cover all negative and positive
> cases.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> You should add enough tests to cover all cases.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Sometimes one test can cover more than one case,
> so
> > > two
> > > > > > > > >> tests
> > > > > > > > >>>>> *CAN*
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> partially check same things.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> In case some cases already covered you should not
> > > create
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> duplicates.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> вт, 8 мая 2018 г. в 10:19, Александр Меньшиков <
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> sharplermc@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> :
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Vladimir, the 3.1 is a bit unclear for me. Which
> > code
> > > > > > > > >>>>> coverage is
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> acceptable? Now it sounds like two tests are
> enough
> > > > (one
> > > > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> positive
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> one for negative cases).
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> 2018-05-07 23:09 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Is this list on the Wiki?
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 7:26 AM, Vladimir Ozerov
> <
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the checklist I have at the moment.
> > Please
> > > > let
> > > > > > > > >>> me
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> know
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> if
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> you
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> any comments on existing items, or want to add
> or
> > > > > > > > >> remove
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> anything.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> It
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> looks
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> like we may have not only strict rules, but
> *nice
> > > to
> > > > > > > > >>> have*
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> points
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> here
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> as
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> well with help of *MUST*, *SHOULD* and *MAY*
> > words
> > > as
> > > > > > > > >>> per
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> RFC2119
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [1].
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> So
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> please feel free to suggest optional items as
> > well.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) API
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.1) API compatibility *MUST* be maintained
> > between
> > > > > > > > >>> minor
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> releases.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Do
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> remove existing methods or change their
> > signatures,
> > > > > > > > >>>>> deprecate
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> them
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> instead
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.2) Default behaviour "SHOULD NOT* be changed
> > > > between
> > > > > > > > >>>>> minor
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> releases,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> unless absolutely needed. If change is made, it
> > > > *MUST*
> > > > > > > > >>> be
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> described
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Migration Guide"
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.3) New operation *MUST* be well-documented in
> > > code
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> (javadoc,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> dotnetdoc):
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> documentation must contain method's purpose,
> > > > > > > > >> description
> > > > > > > > >>>>> of
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> parameters
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> how their values affect the outcome,
> description
> > of
> > > > > > > > >>> return
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> value
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> it's
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> default, behavior in negative cases,
> interaction
> > > with
> > > > > > > > >>>>> other
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> operations
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> components
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.4) API parity between Java and .NET platforms
> > > > > > > > >> *SHOULD*
> > > > > > > > >>>>> be
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> maintained
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> when
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> operation makes sense on both platforms. If
> > method
> > > > > > > > >>> cannot
> > > > > > > > >>>>> be
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> implemented
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a platform immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST*
> be
> > > > > > > > >>> created
> > > > > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> linked
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> current ticket
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.5) API parity between thin clients (Java,
> .NET)
> > > > > > > > >>>>> *SHOULD* be
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> maintained
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> when operation makes sense on several clients.
> If
> > > > > > > > >> method
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> cannot
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> implemented in a client immediately, new JIRA
> > > ticket
> > > > > > > > >>>>> *MUST*
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> created
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> linked to current ticket
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user *MUST*
> have
> > > > > > > > >>>>> explanation
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> how
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> resolve, workaround or debug an error
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Compatibility
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.1) Persistence backward compatibility *MUST*
> be
> > > > > > > > >>>>> maintained
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> between
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> minor
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> releases. It should be possible to start newer
> > > > version
> > > > > > > > >>> on
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> data
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> files
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> created by the previous version
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.2) Thin client forward and backward
> > compatibility
> > > > > > > > >>>>> *SHOULD*
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> maintained
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> between two consecutive minor releases. If
> > > > > > > > >> compatibility
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> cannot
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration
> > > > Guide"
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.3) JDBC and ODBC forward and backward
> > > compatibility
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> *SHOULD*
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> maintained between two consecutive minor
> > releases.
> > > If
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> compatibility
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> cannot
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> be maintained it *MUST* be described in
> > "Migration
> > > > > > > > >>> Guide"
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) Tests
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.1) New functionality *MUST* be covered with
> > unit
> > > > > > > > >> tests
> > > > > > > > >>>>> for
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> both
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> positive
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and negative use cases
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.2) All test suites *MUST* be run before merge
> > to
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> master..There
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> *MUST*
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> no new test failures
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 4) Code style *MUST* be followed as per
> Ignite's
> > > > > > > > >> Coding
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Guidelines
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Vladimir.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Vladimir
> Ozerov <
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Dmitry,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I'll do that in the nearest days.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Dmitry
> Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters, the idea was related to small
> > > > > > > > >> refactorings
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> co-located
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> with
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> main
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Main change itself indicates that existing
> code
> > > did
> > > > > > > > >>> not
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> meet
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> criteria
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of practice. Approving of standalone
> > refactorings
> > > > > > > > >>>>> instead
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> contradicts
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> principle don't touch if it works. So I still
> > > like
> > > > > > > > >>>>> idea of
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> co-located
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes improving code, javadocs, style, etc.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But let's not argue about this point now,
> let's
> > > > > > > > >>>>> summarize
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> undisputed
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> points and add it to the wiki. Vladimir,
> would
> > > you
> > > > > > > > >>>>> please
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> do
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> it?
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 25 апр. 2018 г. в 16:42, Nikolay Izhikov
> <
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> nizhikov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with Vova.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't fix if it works!
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you 100% sure then it a useful addition
> to
> > > the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> product
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> -
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> just
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> make
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate ticket.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> В Ср, 25/04/2018 в 11:44 +0300, Vladimir
> > Ozerov
> > > > > > > > >>>>> пишет:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guys,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem with in-place refactorings is
> > that
> > > > > > > > >>> you
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> increase
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> affected
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scope.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not uncommon to break compatibility
> or
> > > > > > > > >>> public
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> contracts
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> minor things. E.g. recently we decided drop
> > > > > > > > >>>>> org.jsr166
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> package
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> favor
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Java 8 classes. Innocent change. Result -
> > > > > > > > >> broken
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> storage.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Another
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is conflicts. It is not uncommon to have
> > > > > > > > >>> long-lived
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> branches
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> which
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to merge with master over and over again.
> > And a
> > > > > > > > >>>>> lot of
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> refactorings
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conflicts. It is much easier to resolve
> them
> > if
> > > > > > > > >>> you
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> know
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> logic
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affected as opposed to cases when you need
> to
> > > > > > > > >>>>> resolve
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> both
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> renames
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> method extractions along with
> business-logic
> > > > > > > > >>>>> changes.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to repeat - if you have a time for
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> refactoring
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> then
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> you
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitely
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a time to extract these changes to
> > > > > > > > >> separate
> > > > > > > > >>> PR
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> submit a
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ticket. I am quite understand what "low
> > > > > > > > >> priority"
> > > > > > > > >>>>> do
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> you
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> mean
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> if
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> you
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> refactorings on your own.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 10:52 PM, Andrey
> > > > > > > > >>> Kuznetsov
> > > > > > > > >>>>> <
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> stkuzma@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once again, I beg for "small refactoring
> > > > > > > > >>>>> permission"
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> a
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> checklist.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As of
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> today, separate tickets for small
> > > > > > > > >> refactorings
> > > > > > > > >>>>> has
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> lowest
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> priority,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they neither fix any flaw nor add new
> > > > > > > > >>>>> functionality.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Also,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attempts to
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make issue-related code safer / cleaner /
> > > > > > > > >> more
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> readable
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> "real"
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pull
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requests are typically rejected, since
> they
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> contradict
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> our
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> current
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guidelines.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I understand this will require a bit more
> > > > > > > > >>> effort
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> from
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committer/maintainer,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but otherwise we will get constantly
> > > > > > > > >> degrading
> > > > > > > > >>>>> code
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> quality.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018-04-24 18:52 GMT+03:00 Eduard
> Shangareev
> > > > > > > > >> <
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eduard.shangareev@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vladimir,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am not talking about
> > > > > > > > >> massive/sophisticated
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> refactoring.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> But
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that ask to extract some methods should
> be
> > > > > > > > >> OK
> > > > > > > > >>>>> to
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> do
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> without
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> an
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extra
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ticket.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A checklist shouldn't be necessarily a
> set
> > > > > > > > >> of
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> certain
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> rules
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> but
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could include suggestion and reminders.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 6:39 PM, Vladimir
> > > > > > > > >>>>> Ozerov <
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ed,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Refactoring is a separate task. If you
> > > > > > > > >>> would
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> like
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> rework
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exchange
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - please do this in a ticket "Refactor
> > > > > > > > >>>>> exchange
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> task",
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> nobody
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this. This is just a matter of creating
> > > > > > > > >>>>> separate
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> ticket
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one have a time for refactoring, it
> > > > > > > > >> should
> > > > > > > > >>>>> not
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> a
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> problem
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> him to
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spend several minutes on JIRA and
> GitHub.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As far as documentation - what you
> > > > > > > > >> describe
> > > > > > > > >>>>> is
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> normal
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> review
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reviewer might want to ask contributor
> to
> > > > > > > > >>> fix
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> something.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Checklist
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different thing - this is a set of rules
> > > > > > > > >>>>> which
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> must
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> followed
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do not understand how you can define
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> documentation
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checklist.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Same problem with logging - what is
> > > > > > > > >>> "enough"?
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Eduard
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Shangareev <
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't understand why you are so
> > > > > > > > >> against
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> refactoring.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Code already smells like hell. Methods
> > > > > > > > >>> 200+
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> line
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> normal.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Exchange
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is asking to be separated on several
> > > > > > > > >> one.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Transaction
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> code
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> few people.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we separate refactoring from
> > > > > > > > >>>>> development it
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> would
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> mean
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no one
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do it.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Documentation.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everything which was asked by reviewers
> > > > > > > > >>> to
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> clarify
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> idea
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should be
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reflected
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the code.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) Logging.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Logging should be enough to
> > > > > > > > >> troubleshoot
> > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> problem
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> if
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comes
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user-list with an issue in the code.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 7:06 PM, Dmitry
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 to idea of checklist.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 to refactoring and documenting
> > > > > > > > >> code
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> related
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ticket
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +/-20
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOC
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we start to do it as part of our
> > > > > > > > >>>>> regular
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> contribution,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better, it would became common
> > > > > > > > >> practice
> > > > > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> part
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Apache
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> development culure.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we will hope we will have free
> > > > > > > > >> time
> > > > > > > > >>> to
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> submit
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> separate
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patch
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someday
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have patience to complete
> > > > > > > > >>>>> patch-submission
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> process,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> code
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remain
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undocumented and poor-readable.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sincerely,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пт, 20 апр. 2018 г. в 18:56,
> > > > > > > > >> Александр
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Меньшиков <
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sharplermc@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4) Metrics.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partially +1
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It makes sense to have some minimal
> > > > > > > > >>>>> code
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> coverage
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code in
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMHO.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, we can limit the cyclomatic
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> complexity
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> of
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6) Refactoring
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -1
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I understand why people want to
> > > > > > > > >>>>> refactor
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> old
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> code.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I think refactoring should be
> > > > > > > > >>>>> always a
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> separate
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> task.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And it's better to remove all
> > > > > > > > >>>>> refactoring
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> from
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> PR,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> if
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> it's
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the issue.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018-04-20 16:54 GMT+03:00 Andrey
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> Kuznetsov
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> <
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stkuzma@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What about adding the following
> > > > > > > > >>> item
> > > > > > > > >>>>> to
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> checklist:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adds
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new functionality, then unit
> > > > > > > > >> tests
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> should
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> also
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provided, if
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technically possible?
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for refactorings, in fact they
> > > > > > > > >>> are
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> strongly
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discouraged
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> today
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unclear reason. Let's permit to
> > > > > > > > >>> make
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> refactorings
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checklist
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussed. (Of cource,
> > > > > > > > >> refactoring
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> should
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> relate
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being
> > > > > > >

Re: Ticket review checklist

[Dmitry Pavlov <dp...@gmail.com>]

Requirement of green TC for each PR is community rule, not my.

I'll answer ro another question, what should we do with test failure:
"Ideally - fix, but at least mute test and create ticket. "

May be it's time to formalize Make TC Green Again process in details, so
let me share my draft.

If Igniter see test failure (in master, in release bracnh, etc), he should
consider following steps:

   - If your changes can led to this failure(s), please create issue with
   label MakeTeamCityGreenAgain and assign it to you.
      - If you have fix, please set ticket to PA state and write to dev
      list fix is ready.
      - For case fix will require some time please mute test and set label
      Muted_Test to issue
   - If you know which change caused failure please contact change author
   directly.
   - If you don't know which change caused failure please send message to
   dev list to find out




пн, 4 июн. 2018 г. в 15:27, Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>:

> Dmitry,
>
> My question was how to proceed with your rules. Could you please clarify?
>
> On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 2:52 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <dp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Vladimir, I mean strict definition, how much previous runs should
> > contributor consider? What if test was failed by infrastructure reason in
> > master previously, how can contributor be sure test failure != broken
> code
> > in PR? In this case it should be double checked by contributor/reviewer.
> > I'm sure nobody can give strict definition of 'new' failure.
> >
> > Flaky tests detected by TC may be taken into account in check-list,
> because
> > contributor can check if failure is flaky. But again, not all tests with
> > floating failure is detected by TC as flaky.
> >
> > I don't understand what problem will be solved if we soften current
> > requirement with 'new' test? Everybody will continue to complain they
> PR's
> > test failures is not `new`. So let's keep it as is.
> >
> > пн, 4 июн. 2018 г. в 14:46, Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>:
> >
> > > Dmitry,
> > >
> > > New failure is a failure hasn't happened on previous runs. If it do
> > > happened, then contributor should see if it is a flaky or not through
> > local
> > > and TC runs. The same works for timeout suites.
> > > Current statement in "Review Checklist" that there are should be no
> > failed
> > > tests is not applicable to real word. Almost every patch is pushed to
> > > repository with test failures.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 2:22 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <dp...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Vladimir, could you provide definition what is new failure? how do
> > you
> > > > know it is new or not?
> > > >
> > > > And please forget for a moment you're Ignite expert & veteran,
> imagine
> > > you
> > > > are newcomer.
> > > >
> > > > I can't find any criteria that can be used by newbie to come to the
> > > > conclusion that test is new. Patch is accepted by reviewer, so it
> > should
> > > be
> > > > up to him to correctly register failures in tickets with
> > > > MakeTeamCityGreenAgain label and mute unimportant tests.
> > > >
> > > > пн, 4 июн. 2018 г. в 11:32, Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>:
> > > >
> > > > > Dmitry,
> > > > >
> > > > > I still do not see how new patches could be accepted with this
> > > > requirement
> > > > > in place. Consider the following case: I created a patch and run it
> > on
> > > > TC,
> > > > > observed N failures, verified through TC history that none if them
> > are
> > > > new.
> > > > > Am I eligible to push the commit?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 3:11 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <
> > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Petr, good point. It is more intuitive, we should mark test we
> can
> > > > ignore
> > > > > > by mute.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So Vladimir, you or other Ignite veteran can mute test, if can
> say
> > it
> > > > is
> > > > > > not important.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > чт, 24 мая 2018 г. в 15:07, Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com>:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Why cannot we mute (and file corresponding tickets) all test
> > > failures
> > > > > > > (including flaky) to some date and start initiative Green TC?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 24 May 2018, at 15:04, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Dmitry,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > We cannot add this requirements, because we do have failures
> on
> > > TC.
> > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > requirement implies that all development would stop until TC
> is
> > > > > green.
> > > > > > > > We never had old requirement work, neither we need to enforce
> > it
> > > > now.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 2:59 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <
> > > > > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> 3.c
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>   1. All test suites *MUST* be run on TeamCity [3] before
> > merge
> > > to
> > > > > > > master,
> > > > > > > >>   there *MUST NOT* be any test failures
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> 'New' word should be removed because we cant separate `new`
> > and
> > > > `non
> > > > > > > new`
> > > > > > > >> failures.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Let's imagine example, we have 50 green runs in master. And
> PR
> > > > > Run-All
> > > > > > > >> contains this test failed. Is it new or not new? Actually we
> > > don't
> > > > > > know.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Existing requirement is about all TC must be green, so let's
> > > keep
> > > > it
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > is.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> ср, 23 мая 2018 г. в 17:02, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > vozerov@gridgain.com
> > > > >:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>> Igniters,
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> I created review checklist on WIKI [1] and also fixed
> related
> > > > pages
> > > > > > > (e.g.
> > > > > > > >>> "How To Contribute"). Please let me know if you have any
> > > comments
> > > > > > > before
> > > > > > > >> I
> > > > > > > >>> go with public announce.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> Vladimir.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> [1]
> > > > > > >
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Review+Checklist
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:10 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > > > > vozerov@gridgain.com
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>> Ilya,
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> We define that exception messages *SHOULD* have clear
> > > > explanation
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > >> what
> > > > > > > >>>> is wrong. *SHOULD* mean that the rule should be followed
> > > unless
> > > > > > there
> > > > > > > >> is
> > > > > > > >>> a
> > > > > > > >>>> reason not to follow. In your case you refer to some
> > > unexpected
> > > > > > > >> behavior.
> > > > > > > >>>> I.e. an exceptional situation developer is not aware of.
> In
> > > this
> > > > > > case
> > > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > > >>>> sure we cannot force contributor to explain what is wrong,
> > > > > because,
> > > > > > > >> well,
> > > > > > > >>>> we don't know. This is why we relaxed the rule from *MUST*
> > to
> > > > > > > *SHOULD*.
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Ilya Kasnacheev <
> > > > > > > >>>> ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> I don't think I quite understand how exception
> explanations
> > > > > should
> > > > > > > >> work.
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> Imagine we have the following exception:
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> // At least RuntimeException can be thrown by the code
> > above
> > > > when
> > > > > > > >>>>> GridCacheContext is cleaned and there is
> > > > > > > >>>>> // an attempt to use cleaned resources.
> > > > > > > >>>>> U.error(log, "Unexpected exception during cache update",
> > e);
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> I mean, we genuinely don't know what happened here.
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> Under new rules, what kind of "workaround" would that
> > > exception
> > > > > > > >> suggest?
> > > > > > > >>>>> "Try turning it off and then back on"?
> > > > > > > >>>>> What explanation how to resolve this exception can we
> > offer?
> > > > > > "Please
> > > > > > > >>> write
> > > > > > > >>>>> to dev@apache.ignite.org or to Apache JIRA, and then
> wait
> > > for
> > > > a
> > > > > > > >> release
> > > > > > > >>>>> with fix?"
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> I'm really confused how we can implement 1.6 and 1.7 when
> > > > dealing
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > >>>>> messy real-world code.
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> Regards,
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> --
> > > > > > > >>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> 2018-05-10 11:39 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > > vozerov@gridgain.com
> > > > > >:
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Andrey, Anton, Alex
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Agree, *SHOULD* is more appropriate here.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Please see latest version below. Does anyone want to add
> > or
> > > > > change
> > > > > > > >>>>>> something? Let's wait for several days for more feedback
> > and
> > > > > then
> > > > > > > >>>>> publish
> > > > > > > >>>>>> and announce this list. Note that it would not be carved
> > in
> > > > > stone
> > > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > >>> we
> > > > > > > >>>>>> will be able to change it at any time if needed.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> 1) API
> > > > > > > >>>>>> 1.1) API compatibility *MUST* be maintained between
> minor
> > > > > > releases.
> > > > > > > >> Do
> > > > > > > >>>>> not
> > > > > > > >>>>>> remove existing methods or change their signatures,
> > > deprecate
> > > > > them
> > > > > > > >>>>> instead
> > > > > > > >>>>>> 1.2) Default behaviour "SHOULD NOT* be changed between
> > minor
> > > > > > > >> releases,
> > > > > > > >>>>>> unless absolutely needed. If change is made, it *MUST*
> be
> > > > > > described
> > > > > > > >> in
> > > > > > > >>>>>> "Migration Guide"
> > > > > > > >>>>>> 1.3) New operation *MUST* be well-documented in code
> > > (javadoc,
> > > > > > > >>>>> dotnetdoc):
> > > > > > > >>>>>> documentation must contain method's purpose, description
> > of
> > > > > > > >> parameters
> > > > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > > > >>>>>> how their values affect the outcome, description of
> return
> > > > value
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > >>>>> it's
> > > > > > > >>>>>> default, behavior in negative cases, interaction with
> > other
> > > > > > > >> operations
> > > > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > > > >>>>>> components
> > > > > > > >>>>>> 1.4) API parity between Java and .NET platforms *SHOULD*
> > be
> > > > > > > >> maintained
> > > > > > > >>>>> when
> > > > > > > >>>>>> operation makes sense on both platforms. If method
> cannot
> > be
> > > > > > > >>>>> implemented in
> > > > > > > >>>>>> a platform immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be
> created
> > > and
> > > > > > linked
> > > > > > > >>> to
> > > > > > > >>>>>> current ticket
> > > > > > > >>>>>> 1.5) API parity between thin clients (Java, .NET)
> *SHOULD*
> > > be
> > > > > > > >>> maintained
> > > > > > > >>>>>> when operation makes sense on several clients. If method
> > > > cannot
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > >>>>>> implemented in a client immediately, new JIRA ticket
> > *MUST*
> > > be
> > > > > > > >> created
> > > > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > > > >>>>>> linked to current ticket
> > > > > > > >>>>>> 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user **SHOULD** have
> > > > explanation
> > > > > > how
> > > > > > > >>> to
> > > > > > > >>>>>> resolve, workaround or debug an error
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> 2) Compatibility
> > > > > > > >>>>>> 2.1) Persistence backward compatibility *MUST* be
> > maintained
> > > > > > between
> > > > > > > >>>>> minor
> > > > > > > >>>>>> releases. It should be possible to start newer version
> on
> > > data
> > > > > > files
> > > > > > > >>>>>> created by the previous version
> > > > > > > >>>>>> 2.2) Thin client forward and backward compatibility
> > *SHOULD*
> > > > be
> > > > > > > >>>>> maintained
> > > > > > > >>>>>> between two consecutive minor releases. If compatibility
> > > > cannot
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > >>>>>> maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
> > > > > > > >>>>>> 2.3) JDBC and ODBC forward and backward compatibility
> > > *SHOULD*
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > >>>>>> maintained between two consecutive minor releases. If
> > > > > > compatibility
> > > > > > > >>>>> cannot
> > > > > > > >>>>>> be maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration
> Guide"
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> 3) Tests
> > > > > > > >>>>>> 3.1) New functionality *MUST* be covered with unit tests
> > for
> > > > > both
> > > > > > > >>>>> positive
> > > > > > > >>>>>> and negative use cases
> > > > > > > >>>>>> 3.2) All test suites *MUST* be run before merge to
> > > > master..There
> > > > > > > >>> *MUST*
> > > > > > > >>>>> be
> > > > > > > >>>>>> no new test failures
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> 4) Code style *MUST* be followed as per Ignite's Coding
> > > > > Guidelines
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Vladimir.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 1:05 PM, Andrey Kuznetsov <
> > > > > > stkuzma@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> Anton,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> I agree, *MUST* for exception reasons and *SHOULD* for
> > ways
> > > > of
> > > > > > > >>>>> resolution
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> sound clearer.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> 2018-05-08 12:56 GMT+03:00 Anton Vinogradov <
> > av@apache.org
> > > >:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Andrey,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> How about
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user *MUST* have
> > > explanation
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> workaround
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> and contain original error.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> All exceptions thrown to a user *SHOULD* have
> > explanation
> > > > how
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > >>>>>> resolve
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> if
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> possible.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> ?
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> вт, 8 мая 2018 г. в 12:26, Andrey Kuznetsov <
> > > > > stkuzma@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >>> :
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Vladimir, checklist looks pleasant enough for me.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> I'd like to suggest one minor change. In 1.6 *MUST*
> > seems
> > > > to
> > > > > > > >> be
> > > > > > > >>>>> too
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> strict,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> *SHOULD* would be enough. It can be frustrating for
> API
> > > > user
> > > > > > > >> if
> > > > > > > >>> I
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> explain
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> how to fix NPEs in a trivial way, for example.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 2018-05-08 11:34 GMT+03:00 Anton Vinogradov <
> > > av@apache.org
> > > > >:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Alex,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> It is not sounds like that, obviously.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Tests should cover all negative and positive cases.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> You should add enough tests to cover all cases.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Sometimes one test can cover more than one case, so
> > two
> > > > > > > >> tests
> > > > > > > >>>>> *CAN*
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> partially check same things.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> In case some cases already covered you should not
> > create
> > > > > > > >>>>>> duplicates.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> вт, 8 мая 2018 г. в 10:19, Александр Меньшиков <
> > > > > > > >>>>>> sharplermc@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> :
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Vladimir, the 3.1 is a bit unclear for me. Which
> code
> > > > > > > >>>>> coverage is
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> acceptable? Now it sounds like two tests are enough
> > > (one
> > > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> positive
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> one for negative cases).
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> 2018-05-07 23:09 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Is this list on the Wiki?
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 7:26 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the checklist I have at the moment.
> Please
> > > let
> > > > > > > >>> me
> > > > > > > >>>>>> know
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> if
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> you
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> any comments on existing items, or want to add or
> > > > > > > >> remove
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> anything.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> It
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> looks
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> like we may have not only strict rules, but *nice
> > to
> > > > > > > >>> have*
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> points
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> here
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> as
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> well with help of *MUST*, *SHOULD* and *MAY*
> words
> > as
> > > > > > > >>> per
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> RFC2119
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [1].
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> So
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> please feel free to suggest optional items as
> well.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) API
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.1) API compatibility *MUST* be maintained
> between
> > > > > > > >>> minor
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> releases.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Do
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> remove existing methods or change their
> signatures,
> > > > > > > >>>>> deprecate
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> them
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> instead
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.2) Default behaviour "SHOULD NOT* be changed
> > > between
> > > > > > > >>>>> minor
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> releases,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> unless absolutely needed. If change is made, it
> > > *MUST*
> > > > > > > >>> be
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> described
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Migration Guide"
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.3) New operation *MUST* be well-documented in
> > code
> > > > > > > >>>>>> (javadoc,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> dotnetdoc):
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> documentation must contain method's purpose,
> > > > > > > >> description
> > > > > > > >>>>> of
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> parameters
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> how their values affect the outcome, description
> of
> > > > > > > >>> return
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> value
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> it's
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> default, behavior in negative cases, interaction
> > with
> > > > > > > >>>>> other
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> operations
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> components
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.4) API parity between Java and .NET platforms
> > > > > > > >> *SHOULD*
> > > > > > > >>>>> be
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> maintained
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> when
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> operation makes sense on both platforms. If
> method
> > > > > > > >>> cannot
> > > > > > > >>>>> be
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> implemented
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a platform immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be
> > > > > > > >>> created
> > > > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> linked
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> current ticket
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.5) API parity between thin clients (Java, .NET)
> > > > > > > >>>>> *SHOULD* be
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> maintained
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> when operation makes sense on several clients. If
> > > > > > > >> method
> > > > > > > >>>>>> cannot
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> implemented in a client immediately, new JIRA
> > ticket
> > > > > > > >>>>> *MUST*
> > > > > > > >>>>>> be
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> created
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> linked to current ticket
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user *MUST* have
> > > > > > > >>>>> explanation
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> how
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> resolve, workaround or debug an error
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Compatibility
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.1) Persistence backward compatibility *MUST* be
> > > > > > > >>>>> maintained
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> between
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> minor
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> releases. It should be possible to start newer
> > > version
> > > > > > > >>> on
> > > > > > > >>>>>> data
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> files
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> created by the previous version
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.2) Thin client forward and backward
> compatibility
> > > > > > > >>>>> *SHOULD*
> > > > > > > >>>>>> be
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> maintained
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> between two consecutive minor releases. If
> > > > > > > >> compatibility
> > > > > > > >>>>>> cannot
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration
> > > Guide"
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.3) JDBC and ODBC forward and backward
> > compatibility
> > > > > > > >>>>>> *SHOULD*
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> maintained between two consecutive minor
> releases.
> > If
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> compatibility
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> cannot
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> be maintained it *MUST* be described in
> "Migration
> > > > > > > >>> Guide"
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) Tests
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.1) New functionality *MUST* be covered with
> unit
> > > > > > > >> tests
> > > > > > > >>>>> for
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> both
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> positive
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and negative use cases
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.2) All test suites *MUST* be run before merge
> to
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> master..There
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> *MUST*
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> no new test failures
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 4) Code style *MUST* be followed as per Ignite's
> > > > > > > >> Coding
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Guidelines
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Vladimir.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Dmitry,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I'll do that in the nearest days.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters, the idea was related to small
> > > > > > > >> refactorings
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> co-located
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> with
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> main
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Main change itself indicates that existing code
> > did
> > > > > > > >>> not
> > > > > > > >>>>>> meet
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> criteria
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of practice. Approving of standalone
> refactorings
> > > > > > > >>>>> instead
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> contradicts
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> principle don't touch if it works. So I still
> > like
> > > > > > > >>>>> idea of
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> co-located
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes improving code, javadocs, style, etc.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But let's not argue about this point now, let's
> > > > > > > >>>>> summarize
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> undisputed
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> points and add it to the wiki. Vladimir, would
> > you
> > > > > > > >>>>> please
> > > > > > > >>>>>> do
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> it?
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 25 апр. 2018 г. в 16:42, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> nizhikov@apache.org
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with Vova.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't fix if it works!
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you 100% sure then it a useful addition to
> > the
> > > > > > > >>>>>> product
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> -
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> just
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> make
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate ticket.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> В Ср, 25/04/2018 в 11:44 +0300, Vladimir
> Ozerov
> > > > > > > >>>>> пишет:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guys,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem with in-place refactorings is
> that
> > > > > > > >>> you
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> increase
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> affected
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scope.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not uncommon to break compatibility or
> > > > > > > >>> public
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> contracts
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> minor things. E.g. recently we decided drop
> > > > > > > >>>>> org.jsr166
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> package
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> favor
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Java 8 classes. Innocent change. Result -
> > > > > > > >> broken
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> storage.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Another
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is conflicts. It is not uncommon to have
> > > > > > > >>> long-lived
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> branches
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> which
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to merge with master over and over again.
> And a
> > > > > > > >>>>> lot of
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> refactorings
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conflicts. It is much easier to resolve them
> if
> > > > > > > >>> you
> > > > > > > >>>>>> know
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> logic
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affected as opposed to cases when you need to
> > > > > > > >>>>> resolve
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> both
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> renames
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> method extractions along with business-logic
> > > > > > > >>>>> changes.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to repeat - if you have a time for
> > > > > > > >>>>>> refactoring
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> then
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> you
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitely
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a time to extract these changes to
> > > > > > > >> separate
> > > > > > > >>> PR
> > > > > > > >>>>>> and
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> submit a
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ticket. I am quite understand what "low
> > > > > > > >> priority"
> > > > > > > >>>>> do
> > > > > > > >>>>>> you
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> mean
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> if
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> you
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> refactorings on your own.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 10:52 PM, Andrey
> > > > > > > >>> Kuznetsov
> > > > > > > >>>>> <
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> stkuzma@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once again, I beg for "small refactoring
> > > > > > > >>>>> permission"
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> a
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> checklist.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As of
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> today, separate tickets for small
> > > > > > > >> refactorings
> > > > > > > >>>>> has
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> lowest
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> priority,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they neither fix any flaw nor add new
> > > > > > > >>>>> functionality.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Also,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attempts to
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make issue-related code safer / cleaner /
> > > > > > > >> more
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> readable
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> "real"
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pull
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requests are typically rejected, since they
> > > > > > > >>>>>> contradict
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> our
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> current
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guidelines.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I understand this will require a bit more
> > > > > > > >>> effort
> > > > > > > >>>>>> from
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committer/maintainer,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but otherwise we will get constantly
> > > > > > > >> degrading
> > > > > > > >>>>> code
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> quality.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018-04-24 18:52 GMT+03:00 Eduard Shangareev
> > > > > > > >> <
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eduard.shangareev@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vladimir,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am not talking about
> > > > > > > >> massive/sophisticated
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> refactoring.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> But
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that ask to extract some methods should be
> > > > > > > >> OK
> > > > > > > >>>>> to
> > > > > > > >>>>>> do
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> without
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> an
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extra
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ticket.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A checklist shouldn't be necessarily a set
> > > > > > > >> of
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> certain
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> rules
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> but
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could include suggestion and reminders.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 6:39 PM, Vladimir
> > > > > > > >>>>> Ozerov <
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ed,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Refactoring is a separate task. If you
> > > > > > > >>> would
> > > > > > > >>>>>> like
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> rework
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exchange
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - please do this in a ticket "Refactor
> > > > > > > >>>>> exchange
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> task",
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> nobody
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this. This is just a matter of creating
> > > > > > > >>>>> separate
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> ticket
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one have a time for refactoring, it
> > > > > > > >> should
> > > > > > > >>>>> not
> > > > > > > >>>>>> be
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> a
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> problem
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> him to
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spend several minutes on JIRA and GitHub.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As far as documentation - what you
> > > > > > > >> describe
> > > > > > > >>>>> is
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> normal
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> review
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reviewer might want to ask contributor to
> > > > > > > >>> fix
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> something.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Checklist
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different thing - this is a set of rules
> > > > > > > >>>>> which
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> must
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> followed
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do not understand how you can define
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> documentation
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checklist.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Same problem with logging - what is
> > > > > > > >>> "enough"?
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Eduard
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> Shangareev <
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't understand why you are so
> > > > > > > >> against
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> refactoring.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Code already smells like hell. Methods
> > > > > > > >>> 200+
> > > > > > > >>>>>> line
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> is
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> normal.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Exchange
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is asking to be separated on several
> > > > > > > >> one.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Transaction
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> code
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> few people.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we separate refactoring from
> > > > > > > >>>>> development it
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> would
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> mean
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no one
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do it.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Documentation.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everything which was asked by reviewers
> > > > > > > >>> to
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> clarify
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> idea
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should be
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reflected
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the code.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) Logging.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Logging should be enough to
> > > > > > > >> troubleshoot
> > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> problem
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> if
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comes
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user-list with an issue in the code.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 7:06 PM, Dmitry
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Pavlov <
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 to idea of checklist.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 to refactoring and documenting
> > > > > > > >> code
> > > > > > > >>>>>> related
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ticket
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +/-20
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOC
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we start to do it as part of our
> > > > > > > >>>>> regular
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> contribution,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better, it would became common
> > > > > > > >> practice
> > > > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> part
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Apache
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> development culure.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we will hope we will have free
> > > > > > > >> time
> > > > > > > >>> to
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> submit
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> separate
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patch
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someday
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have patience to complete
> > > > > > > >>>>> patch-submission
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> process,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> code
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remain
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undocumented and poor-readable.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sincerely,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пт, 20 апр. 2018 г. в 18:56,
> > > > > > > >> Александр
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Меньшиков <
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sharplermc@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4) Metrics.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partially +1
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It makes sense to have some minimal
> > > > > > > >>>>> code
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> coverage
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code in
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMHO.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, we can limit the cyclomatic
> > > > > > > >>>>>> complexity
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> of
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6) Refactoring
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -1
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I understand why people want to
> > > > > > > >>>>> refactor
> > > > > > > >>>>>> old
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> code.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I think refactoring should be
> > > > > > > >>>>> always a
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> separate
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> task.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And it's better to remove all
> > > > > > > >>>>> refactoring
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> from
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> PR,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> if
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> it's
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the issue.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018-04-20 16:54 GMT+03:00 Andrey
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Kuznetsov
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> <
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stkuzma@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What about adding the following
> > > > > > > >>> item
> > > > > > > >>>>> to
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> checklist:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adds
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new functionality, then unit
> > > > > > > >> tests
> > > > > > > >>>>>> should
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> also
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provided, if
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technically possible?
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for refactorings, in fact they
> > > > > > > >>> are
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> strongly
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discouraged
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> today
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unclear reason. Let's permit to
> > > > > > > >>> make
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> refactorings
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checklist
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussed. (Of cource,
> > > > > > > >> refactoring
> > > > > > > >>>>>> should
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> relate
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solved.)
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018-04-20 16:16 GMT+03:00
> > > > > > > >> Vladimir
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> Ozerov <
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vozerov@gridgain.com
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Ed,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately some of these
> > > > > > > >>> points
> > > > > > > >>>>> are
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> not
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> good
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> candidates
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checklist because of these:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - It must be clear and disallow
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> *multiple
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interpretations*
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - It must be *lightweight*,
> > > > > > > >>>>> otherwise
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Ignite
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> development
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> become a
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nightmare
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We cannot have "nice to have"
> > > > > > > >>>>> points
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> here.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Checklist
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question "is ticket eligible to
> > > > > > > >>> be
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> merged?"
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Code style.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Documentation
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -1, it is impossible to define
> > > > > > > >>>>> what is
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "well-documented". A
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> piece
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could be obvious for one
> > > > > > > >>>>> contributor,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> non-obvious
> > > > > > > >>>>>>

Re: Ticket review checklist

[Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>]

Dmitry,

My question was how to proceed with your rules. Could you please clarify?

On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 2:52 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <dp...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Vladimir, I mean strict definition, how much previous runs should
> contributor consider? What if test was failed by infrastructure reason in
> master previously, how can contributor be sure test failure != broken code
> in PR? In this case it should be double checked by contributor/reviewer.
> I'm sure nobody can give strict definition of 'new' failure.
>
> Flaky tests detected by TC may be taken into account in check-list, because
> contributor can check if failure is flaky. But again, not all tests with
> floating failure is detected by TC as flaky.
>
> I don't understand what problem will be solved if we soften current
> requirement with 'new' test? Everybody will continue to complain they PR's
> test failures is not `new`. So let's keep it as is.
>
> пн, 4 июн. 2018 г. в 14:46, Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>:
>
> > Dmitry,
> >
> > New failure is a failure hasn't happened on previous runs. If it do
> > happened, then contributor should see if it is a flaky or not through
> local
> > and TC runs. The same works for timeout suites.
> > Current statement in "Review Checklist" that there are should be no
> failed
> > tests is not applicable to real word. Almost every patch is pushed to
> > repository with test failures.
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 2:22 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <dp...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Vladimir, could you provide definition what is new failure? how do
> you
> > > know it is new or not?
> > >
> > > And please forget for a moment you're Ignite expert & veteran, imagine
> > you
> > > are newcomer.
> > >
> > > I can't find any criteria that can be used by newbie to come to the
> > > conclusion that test is new. Patch is accepted by reviewer, so it
> should
> > be
> > > up to him to correctly register failures in tickets with
> > > MakeTeamCityGreenAgain label and mute unimportant tests.
> > >
> > > пн, 4 июн. 2018 г. в 11:32, Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>:
> > >
> > > > Dmitry,
> > > >
> > > > I still do not see how new patches could be accepted with this
> > > requirement
> > > > in place. Consider the following case: I created a patch and run it
> on
> > > TC,
> > > > observed N failures, verified through TC history that none if them
> are
> > > new.
> > > > Am I eligible to push the commit?
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 3:11 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <
> dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Petr, good point. It is more intuitive, we should mark test we can
> > > ignore
> > > > > by mute.
> > > > >
> > > > > So Vladimir, you or other Ignite veteran can mute test, if can say
> it
> > > is
> > > > > not important.
> > > > >
> > > > > чт, 24 мая 2018 г. в 15:07, Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com>:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Why cannot we mute (and file corresponding tickets) all test
> > failures
> > > > > > (including flaky) to some date and start initiative Green TC?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 24 May 2018, at 15:04, Vladimir Ozerov <
> vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dmitry,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We cannot add this requirements, because we do have failures on
> > TC.
> > > > > This
> > > > > > > requirement implies that all development would stop until TC is
> > > > green.
> > > > > > > We never had old requirement work, neither we need to enforce
> it
> > > now.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 2:59 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <
> > > > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> 3.c
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>   1. All test suites *MUST* be run on TeamCity [3] before
> merge
> > to
> > > > > > master,
> > > > > > >>   there *MUST NOT* be any test failures
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> 'New' word should be removed because we cant separate `new`
> and
> > > `non
> > > > > > new`
> > > > > > >> failures.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Let's imagine example, we have 50 green runs in master. And PR
> > > > Run-All
> > > > > > >> contains this test failed. Is it new or not new? Actually we
> > don't
> > > > > know.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Existing requirement is about all TC must be green, so let's
> > keep
> > > it
> > > > > as
> > > > > > is.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> ср, 23 мая 2018 г. в 17:02, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > vozerov@gridgain.com
> > > >:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>> Igniters,
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> I created review checklist on WIKI [1] and also fixed related
> > > pages
> > > > > > (e.g.
> > > > > > >>> "How To Contribute"). Please let me know if you have any
> > comments
> > > > > > before
> > > > > > >> I
> > > > > > >>> go with public announce.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Vladimir.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> [1]
> > > > > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Review+Checklist
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:10 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > > > vozerov@gridgain.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>> Ilya,
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> We define that exception messages *SHOULD* have clear
> > > explanation
> > > > on
> > > > > > >> what
> > > > > > >>>> is wrong. *SHOULD* mean that the rule should be followed
> > unless
> > > > > there
> > > > > > >> is
> > > > > > >>> a
> > > > > > >>>> reason not to follow. In your case you refer to some
> > unexpected
> > > > > > >> behavior.
> > > > > > >>>> I.e. an exceptional situation developer is not aware of. In
> > this
> > > > > case
> > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > >>>> sure we cannot force contributor to explain what is wrong,
> > > > because,
> > > > > > >> well,
> > > > > > >>>> we don't know. This is why we relaxed the rule from *MUST*
> to
> > > > > > *SHOULD*.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Ilya Kasnacheev <
> > > > > > >>>> ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> I don't think I quite understand how exception explanations
> > > > should
> > > > > > >> work.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Imagine we have the following exception:
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> // At least RuntimeException can be thrown by the code
> above
> > > when
> > > > > > >>>>> GridCacheContext is cleaned and there is
> > > > > > >>>>> // an attempt to use cleaned resources.
> > > > > > >>>>> U.error(log, "Unexpected exception during cache update",
> e);
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> I mean, we genuinely don't know what happened here.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Under new rules, what kind of "workaround" would that
> > exception
> > > > > > >> suggest?
> > > > > > >>>>> "Try turning it off and then back on"?
> > > > > > >>>>> What explanation how to resolve this exception can we
> offer?
> > > > > "Please
> > > > > > >>> write
> > > > > > >>>>> to dev@apache.ignite.org or to Apache JIRA, and then wait
> > for
> > > a
> > > > > > >> release
> > > > > > >>>>> with fix?"
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> I'm really confused how we can implement 1.6 and 1.7 when
> > > dealing
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > >>>>> messy real-world code.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Regards,
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> --
> > > > > > >>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> 2018-05-10 11:39 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > vozerov@gridgain.com
> > > > >:
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> Andrey, Anton, Alex
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> Agree, *SHOULD* is more appropriate here.
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> Please see latest version below. Does anyone want to add
> or
> > > > change
> > > > > > >>>>>> something? Let's wait for several days for more feedback
> and
> > > > then
> > > > > > >>>>> publish
> > > > > > >>>>>> and announce this list. Note that it would not be carved
> in
> > > > stone
> > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > >>> we
> > > > > > >>>>>> will be able to change it at any time if needed.
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> 1) API
> > > > > > >>>>>> 1.1) API compatibility *MUST* be maintained between minor
> > > > > releases.
> > > > > > >> Do
> > > > > > >>>>> not
> > > > > > >>>>>> remove existing methods or change their signatures,
> > deprecate
> > > > them
> > > > > > >>>>> instead
> > > > > > >>>>>> 1.2) Default behaviour "SHOULD NOT* be changed between
> minor
> > > > > > >> releases,
> > > > > > >>>>>> unless absolutely needed. If change is made, it *MUST* be
> > > > > described
> > > > > > >> in
> > > > > > >>>>>> "Migration Guide"
> > > > > > >>>>>> 1.3) New operation *MUST* be well-documented in code
> > (javadoc,
> > > > > > >>>>> dotnetdoc):
> > > > > > >>>>>> documentation must contain method's purpose, description
> of
> > > > > > >> parameters
> > > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > > >>>>>> how their values affect the outcome, description of return
> > > value
> > > > > and
> > > > > > >>>>> it's
> > > > > > >>>>>> default, behavior in negative cases, interaction with
> other
> > > > > > >> operations
> > > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > > >>>>>> components
> > > > > > >>>>>> 1.4) API parity between Java and .NET platforms *SHOULD*
> be
> > > > > > >> maintained
> > > > > > >>>>> when
> > > > > > >>>>>> operation makes sense on both platforms. If method cannot
> be
> > > > > > >>>>> implemented in
> > > > > > >>>>>> a platform immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be created
> > and
> > > > > linked
> > > > > > >>> to
> > > > > > >>>>>> current ticket
> > > > > > >>>>>> 1.5) API parity between thin clients (Java, .NET) *SHOULD*
> > be
> > > > > > >>> maintained
> > > > > > >>>>>> when operation makes sense on several clients. If method
> > > cannot
> > > > be
> > > > > > >>>>>> implemented in a client immediately, new JIRA ticket
> *MUST*
> > be
> > > > > > >> created
> > > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > > >>>>>> linked to current ticket
> > > > > > >>>>>> 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user **SHOULD** have
> > > explanation
> > > > > how
> > > > > > >>> to
> > > > > > >>>>>> resolve, workaround or debug an error
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> 2) Compatibility
> > > > > > >>>>>> 2.1) Persistence backward compatibility *MUST* be
> maintained
> > > > > between
> > > > > > >>>>> minor
> > > > > > >>>>>> releases. It should be possible to start newer version on
> > data
> > > > > files
> > > > > > >>>>>> created by the previous version
> > > > > > >>>>>> 2.2) Thin client forward and backward compatibility
> *SHOULD*
> > > be
> > > > > > >>>>> maintained
> > > > > > >>>>>> between two consecutive minor releases. If compatibility
> > > cannot
> > > > be
> > > > > > >>>>>> maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
> > > > > > >>>>>> 2.3) JDBC and ODBC forward and backward compatibility
> > *SHOULD*
> > > > be
> > > > > > >>>>>> maintained between two consecutive minor releases. If
> > > > > compatibility
> > > > > > >>>>> cannot
> > > > > > >>>>>> be maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> 3) Tests
> > > > > > >>>>>> 3.1) New functionality *MUST* be covered with unit tests
> for
> > > > both
> > > > > > >>>>> positive
> > > > > > >>>>>> and negative use cases
> > > > > > >>>>>> 3.2) All test suites *MUST* be run before merge to
> > > master..There
> > > > > > >>> *MUST*
> > > > > > >>>>> be
> > > > > > >>>>>> no new test failures
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> 4) Code style *MUST* be followed as per Ignite's Coding
> > > > Guidelines
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> Vladimir.
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 1:05 PM, Andrey Kuznetsov <
> > > > > stkuzma@gmail.com
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Anton,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> I agree, *MUST* for exception reasons and *SHOULD* for
> ways
> > > of
> > > > > > >>>>> resolution
> > > > > > >>>>>>> sound clearer.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> 2018-05-08 12:56 GMT+03:00 Anton Vinogradov <
> av@apache.org
> > >:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Andrey,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> How about
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user *MUST* have
> > explanation
> > > > of
> > > > > > >>>>>>> workaround
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> and contain original error.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> All exceptions thrown to a user *SHOULD* have
> explanation
> > > how
> > > > to
> > > > > > >>>>>> resolve
> > > > > > >>>>>>> if
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> possible.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> ?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> вт, 8 мая 2018 г. в 12:26, Andrey Kuznetsov <
> > > > stkuzma@gmail.com
> > > > > > >>> :
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Vladimir, checklist looks pleasant enough for me.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> I'd like to suggest one minor change. In 1.6 *MUST*
> seems
> > > to
> > > > > > >> be
> > > > > > >>>>> too
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> strict,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> *SHOULD* would be enough. It can be frustrating for API
> > > user
> > > > > > >> if
> > > > > > >>> I
> > > > > > >>>>>>> explain
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> how to fix NPEs in a trivial way, for example.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 2018-05-08 11:34 GMT+03:00 Anton Vinogradov <
> > av@apache.org
> > > >:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Alex,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> It is not sounds like that, obviously.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Tests should cover all negative and positive cases.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> You should add enough tests to cover all cases.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Sometimes one test can cover more than one case, so
> two
> > > > > > >> tests
> > > > > > >>>>> *CAN*
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> partially check same things.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> In case some cases already covered you should not
> create
> > > > > > >>>>>> duplicates.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> вт, 8 мая 2018 г. в 10:19, Александр Меньшиков <
> > > > > > >>>>>> sharplermc@gmail.com
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> :
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Vladimir, the 3.1 is a bit unclear for me. Which code
> > > > > > >>>>> coverage is
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> acceptable? Now it sounds like two tests are enough
> > (one
> > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > >>>>>>> positive
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> one for negative cases).
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> 2018-05-07 23:09 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > > > > > >>>>>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Is this list on the Wiki?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 7:26 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the checklist I have at the moment. Please
> > let
> > > > > > >>> me
> > > > > > >>>>>> know
> > > > > > >>>>>>> if
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> you
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> any comments on existing items, or want to add or
> > > > > > >> remove
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> anything.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> It
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> looks
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> like we may have not only strict rules, but *nice
> to
> > > > > > >>> have*
> > > > > > >>>>>>> points
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> here
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> as
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> well with help of *MUST*, *SHOULD* and *MAY* words
> as
> > > > > > >>> per
> > > > > > >>>>>>> RFC2119
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [1].
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> So
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> please feel free to suggest optional items as well.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) API
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.1) API compatibility *MUST* be maintained between
> > > > > > >>> minor
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> releases.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Do
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> remove existing methods or change their signatures,
> > > > > > >>>>> deprecate
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> them
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> instead
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.2) Default behaviour "SHOULD NOT* be changed
> > between
> > > > > > >>>>> minor
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> releases,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> unless absolutely needed. If change is made, it
> > *MUST*
> > > > > > >>> be
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> described
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Migration Guide"
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.3) New operation *MUST* be well-documented in
> code
> > > > > > >>>>>> (javadoc,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> dotnetdoc):
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> documentation must contain method's purpose,
> > > > > > >> description
> > > > > > >>>>> of
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> parameters
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> how their values affect the outcome, description of
> > > > > > >>> return
> > > > > > >>>>>>> value
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> it's
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> default, behavior in negative cases, interaction
> with
> > > > > > >>>>> other
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> operations
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> components
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.4) API parity between Java and .NET platforms
> > > > > > >> *SHOULD*
> > > > > > >>>>> be
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> maintained
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> when
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> operation makes sense on both platforms. If method
> > > > > > >>> cannot
> > > > > > >>>>> be
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> implemented
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a platform immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be
> > > > > > >>> created
> > > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> linked
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> current ticket
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.5) API parity between thin clients (Java, .NET)
> > > > > > >>>>> *SHOULD* be
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> maintained
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> when operation makes sense on several clients. If
> > > > > > >> method
> > > > > > >>>>>> cannot
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> implemented in a client immediately, new JIRA
> ticket
> > > > > > >>>>> *MUST*
> > > > > > >>>>>> be
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> created
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> linked to current ticket
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user *MUST* have
> > > > > > >>>>> explanation
> > > > > > >>>>>>> how
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> resolve, workaround or debug an error
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Compatibility
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.1) Persistence backward compatibility *MUST* be
> > > > > > >>>>> maintained
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> between
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> minor
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> releases. It should be possible to start newer
> > version
> > > > > > >>> on
> > > > > > >>>>>> data
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> files
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> created by the previous version
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.2) Thin client forward and backward compatibility
> > > > > > >>>>> *SHOULD*
> > > > > > >>>>>> be
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> maintained
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> between two consecutive minor releases. If
> > > > > > >> compatibility
> > > > > > >>>>>> cannot
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration
> > Guide"
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.3) JDBC and ODBC forward and backward
> compatibility
> > > > > > >>>>>> *SHOULD*
> > > > > > >>>>>>> be
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> maintained between two consecutive minor releases.
> If
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> compatibility
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> cannot
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> be maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration
> > > > > > >>> Guide"
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) Tests
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.1) New functionality *MUST* be covered with unit
> > > > > > >> tests
> > > > > > >>>>> for
> > > > > > >>>>>>> both
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> positive
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and negative use cases
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.2) All test suites *MUST* be run before merge to
> > > > > > >>>>>>> master..There
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> *MUST*
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> no new test failures
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 4) Code style *MUST* be followed as per Ignite's
> > > > > > >> Coding
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Guidelines
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Vladimir.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Dmitry,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I'll do that in the nearest days.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters, the idea was related to small
> > > > > > >> refactorings
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> co-located
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> with
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> main
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Main change itself indicates that existing code
> did
> > > > > > >>> not
> > > > > > >>>>>> meet
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> criteria
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of practice. Approving of standalone refactorings
> > > > > > >>>>> instead
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> contradicts
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> principle don't touch if it works. So I still
> like
> > > > > > >>>>> idea of
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> co-located
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes improving code, javadocs, style, etc.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But let's not argue about this point now, let's
> > > > > > >>>>> summarize
> > > > > > >>>>>>> the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> undisputed
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> points and add it to the wiki. Vladimir, would
> you
> > > > > > >>>>> please
> > > > > > >>>>>> do
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> it?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 25 апр. 2018 г. в 16:42, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> nizhikov@apache.org
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with Vova.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't fix if it works!
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you 100% sure then it a useful addition to
> the
> > > > > > >>>>>> product
> > > > > > >>>>>>> -
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> just
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> make
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate ticket.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> В Ср, 25/04/2018 в 11:44 +0300, Vladimir Ozerov
> > > > > > >>>>> пишет:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guys,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem with in-place refactorings is that
> > > > > > >>> you
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> increase
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> affected
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scope.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not uncommon to break compatibility or
> > > > > > >>> public
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> contracts
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> minor things. E.g. recently we decided drop
> > > > > > >>>>> org.jsr166
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> package
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> favor
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Java 8 classes. Innocent change. Result -
> > > > > > >> broken
> > > > > > >>>>>>> storage.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Another
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is conflicts. It is not uncommon to have
> > > > > > >>> long-lived
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> branches
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> which
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to merge with master over and over again. And a
> > > > > > >>>>> lot of
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> refactorings
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conflicts. It is much easier to resolve them if
> > > > > > >>> you
> > > > > > >>>>>> know
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> logic
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affected as opposed to cases when you need to
> > > > > > >>>>> resolve
> > > > > > >>>>>>> both
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> renames
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> method extractions along with business-logic
> > > > > > >>>>> changes.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to repeat - if you have a time for
> > > > > > >>>>>> refactoring
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> then
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> you
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitely
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a time to extract these changes to
> > > > > > >> separate
> > > > > > >>> PR
> > > > > > >>>>>> and
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> submit a
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ticket. I am quite understand what "low
> > > > > > >> priority"
> > > > > > >>>>> do
> > > > > > >>>>>> you
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> mean
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> if
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> you
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> refactorings on your own.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 10:52 PM, Andrey
> > > > > > >>> Kuznetsov
> > > > > > >>>>> <
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> stkuzma@gmail.com
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once again, I beg for "small refactoring
> > > > > > >>>>> permission"
> > > > > > >>>>>>> in
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> a
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> checklist.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As of
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> today, separate tickets for small
> > > > > > >> refactorings
> > > > > > >>>>> has
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> lowest
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> priority,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they neither fix any flaw nor add new
> > > > > > >>>>> functionality.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Also,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attempts to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make issue-related code safer / cleaner /
> > > > > > >> more
> > > > > > >>>>>>> readable
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> "real"
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pull
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requests are typically rejected, since they
> > > > > > >>>>>> contradict
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> our
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> current
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guidelines.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I understand this will require a bit more
> > > > > > >>> effort
> > > > > > >>>>>> from
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committer/maintainer,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but otherwise we will get constantly
> > > > > > >> degrading
> > > > > > >>>>> code
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> quality.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018-04-24 18:52 GMT+03:00 Eduard Shangareev
> > > > > > >> <
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eduard.shangareev@gmail.com
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vladimir,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am not talking about
> > > > > > >> massive/sophisticated
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> refactoring.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> But
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that ask to extract some methods should be
> > > > > > >> OK
> > > > > > >>>>> to
> > > > > > >>>>>> do
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> without
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> an
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extra
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ticket.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A checklist shouldn't be necessarily a set
> > > > > > >> of
> > > > > > >>>>>>> certain
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> rules
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> but
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could include suggestion and reminders.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 6:39 PM, Vladimir
> > > > > > >>>>> Ozerov <
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ed,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Refactoring is a separate task. If you
> > > > > > >>> would
> > > > > > >>>>>> like
> > > > > > >>>>>>> to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> rework
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exchange
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - please do this in a ticket "Refactor
> > > > > > >>>>> exchange
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> task",
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> nobody
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this. This is just a matter of creating
> > > > > > >>>>> separate
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> ticket
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one have a time for refactoring, it
> > > > > > >> should
> > > > > > >>>>> not
> > > > > > >>>>>> be
> > > > > > >>>>>>> a
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> problem
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> him to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spend several minutes on JIRA and GitHub.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As far as documentation - what you
> > > > > > >> describe
> > > > > > >>>>> is
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> normal
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> review
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reviewer might want to ask contributor to
> > > > > > >>> fix
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> something.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Checklist
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different thing - this is a set of rules
> > > > > > >>>>> which
> > > > > > >>>>>>> must
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> followed
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do not understand how you can define
> > > > > > >>>>>>> documentation
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checklist.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Same problem with logging - what is
> > > > > > >>> "enough"?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Eduard
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Shangareev <
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't understand why you are so
> > > > > > >> against
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> refactoring.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Code already smells like hell. Methods
> > > > > > >>> 200+
> > > > > > >>>>>> line
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> is
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> normal.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Exchange
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is asking to be separated on several
> > > > > > >> one.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Transaction
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> code
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> few people.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we separate refactoring from
> > > > > > >>>>> development it
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> would
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> mean
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no one
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do it.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Documentation.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everything which was asked by reviewers
> > > > > > >>> to
> > > > > > >>>>>>> clarify
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> idea
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should be
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reflected
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the code.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) Logging.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Logging should be enough to
> > > > > > >> troubleshoot
> > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> problem
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> if
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comes
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user-list with an issue in the code.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 7:06 PM, Dmitry
> > > > > > >>>>>> Pavlov <
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 to idea of checklist.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 to refactoring and documenting
> > > > > > >> code
> > > > > > >>>>>> related
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ticket
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +/-20
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOC
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we start to do it as part of our
> > > > > > >>>>> regular
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> contribution,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better, it would became common
> > > > > > >> practice
> > > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > > >>>>>>> part
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Apache
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> development culure.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we will hope we will have free
> > > > > > >> time
> > > > > > >>> to
> > > > > > >>>>>>> submit
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> separate
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patch
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someday
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have patience to complete
> > > > > > >>>>> patch-submission
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> process,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> code
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remain
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undocumented and poor-readable.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sincerely,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пт, 20 апр. 2018 г. в 18:56,
> > > > > > >> Александр
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Меньшиков <
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sharplermc@gmail.com
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4) Metrics.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partially +1
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It makes sense to have some minimal
> > > > > > >>>>> code
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> coverage
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code in
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMHO.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, we can limit the cyclomatic
> > > > > > >>>>>> complexity
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> of
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6) Refactoring
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -1
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I understand why people want to
> > > > > > >>>>> refactor
> > > > > > >>>>>> old
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> code.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I think refactoring should be
> > > > > > >>>>> always a
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> separate
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> task.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And it's better to remove all
> > > > > > >>>>> refactoring
> > > > > > >>>>>>> from
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> PR,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> if
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> it's
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the issue.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018-04-20 16:54 GMT+03:00 Andrey
> > > > > > >>>>>> Kuznetsov
> > > > > > >>>>>>> <
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stkuzma@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What about adding the following
> > > > > > >>> item
> > > > > > >>>>> to
> > > > > > >>>>>>> the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> checklist:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adds
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new functionality, then unit
> > > > > > >> tests
> > > > > > >>>>>> should
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> also
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provided, if
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technically possible?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for refactorings, in fact they
> > > > > > >>> are
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> strongly
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discouraged
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> today
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unclear reason. Let's permit to
> > > > > > >>> make
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> refactorings
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checklist
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussed. (Of cource,
> > > > > > >> refactoring
> > > > > > >>>>>> should
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> relate
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solved.)
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018-04-20 16:16 GMT+03:00
> > > > > > >> Vladimir
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Ozerov <
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vozerov@gridgain.com
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Ed,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately some of these
> > > > > > >>> points
> > > > > > >>>>> are
> > > > > > >>>>>>> not
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> good
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> candidates
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checklist because of these:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - It must be clear and disallow
> > > > > > >>>>>>> *multiple
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interpretations*
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - It must be *lightweight*,
> > > > > > >>>>> otherwise
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Ignite
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> development
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> become a
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nightmare
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We cannot have "nice to have"
> > > > > > >>>>> points
> > > > > > >>>>>>> here.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Checklist
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question "is ticket eligible to
> > > > > > >>> be
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> merged?"
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Code style.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Documentation
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -1, it is impossible to define
> > > > > > >>>>> what is
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "well-documented". A
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> piece
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could be obvious for one
> > > > > > >>>>> contributor,
> > > > > > >>>>>>> and
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> non-obvious
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case this is not a blocker for
> > > > > > >>>>> merge.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Instead,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> during
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ask
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementer to add more docs,
> > > > > > >> but
> > > > > > >>>>> it
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> cannot
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> forced.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) Logging
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -1, same problem - what is
> > > > > > >>> "enough
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> logging?".
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Enough
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whom?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand whether it is enough
> > > > > > >>> or
> > > > > > >>>>>> not?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4) Metrics
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -1, no clear boundaries, and
> > > > > > >>>>> decision
> > > > > > >>>>>> on
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> whether
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> metrics
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> added
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not should be performed during
> > > > > > >>>>> design
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> phase.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> As
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perfectly
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valid to ask contributor to add
> > > > > > >>>>>> metrics
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> with
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> clear
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this is not part of the
> > > > > > >>> checklist.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5) TC status
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1, already mentioned
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6) Refactoring
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Strong -1. OOP is a slippery
> > > > > > >>> slope,
> > > > > > >>>>>>> there
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> are
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> no
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> good
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and bad
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> receipts
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all cases, hence it cannot be
> > > > > > >>> used
> > > > > > >>>>> in
> > > > > > >>>>>> a
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> checklist.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can borrow useful rules from
> > > > > > >>>>> p.2,
> > > > > > >>>>>> p.3
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> p.4
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> if
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clear
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions on how to measure
> > > > > > >>> them.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vladimir.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:50
> > > > > > >> PM,
> > > > > > >>>>>> Eduard
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Shangareev <
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eduard.shangareev@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, I want to add some
> > > > > > >>>>> technical
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> requirement.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Code style.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The code needs to be
> > > > > > >> formatted
> > > > > > >>>>>>> according
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> coding
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guidelines
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>

Re: Ticket review checklist

[Dmitry Pavlov <dp...@gmail.com>]

Vladimir, I mean strict definition, how much previous runs should
contributor consider? What if test was failed by infrastructure reason in
master previously, how can contributor be sure test failure != broken code
in PR? In this case it should be double checked by contributor/reviewer.
I'm sure nobody can give strict definition of 'new' failure.

Flaky tests detected by TC may be taken into account in check-list, because
contributor can check if failure is flaky. But again, not all tests with
floating failure is detected by TC as flaky.

I don't understand what problem will be solved if we soften current
requirement with 'new' test? Everybody will continue to complain they PR's
test failures is not `new`. So let's keep it as is.

пн, 4 июн. 2018 г. в 14:46, Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>:

> Dmitry,
>
> New failure is a failure hasn't happened on previous runs. If it do
> happened, then contributor should see if it is a flaky or not through local
> and TC runs. The same works for timeout suites.
> Current statement in "Review Checklist" that there are should be no failed
> tests is not applicable to real word. Almost every patch is pushed to
> repository with test failures.
>
> On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 2:22 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <dp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Vladimir, could you provide definition what is new failure? how do you
> > know it is new or not?
> >
> > And please forget for a moment you're Ignite expert & veteran, imagine
> you
> > are newcomer.
> >
> > I can't find any criteria that can be used by newbie to come to the
> > conclusion that test is new. Patch is accepted by reviewer, so it should
> be
> > up to him to correctly register failures in tickets with
> > MakeTeamCityGreenAgain label and mute unimportant tests.
> >
> > пн, 4 июн. 2018 г. в 11:32, Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>:
> >
> > > Dmitry,
> > >
> > > I still do not see how new patches could be accepted with this
> > requirement
> > > in place. Consider the following case: I created a patch and run it on
> > TC,
> > > observed N failures, verified through TC history that none if them are
> > new.
> > > Am I eligible to push the commit?
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 3:11 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <dp...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Petr, good point. It is more intuitive, we should mark test we can
> > ignore
> > > > by mute.
> > > >
> > > > So Vladimir, you or other Ignite veteran can mute test, if can say it
> > is
> > > > not important.
> > > >
> > > > чт, 24 мая 2018 г. в 15:07, Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com>:
> > > >
> > > > > Why cannot we mute (and file corresponding tickets) all test
> failures
> > > > > (including flaky) to some date and start initiative Green TC?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > On 24 May 2018, at 15:04, Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dmitry,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We cannot add this requirements, because we do have failures on
> TC.
> > > > This
> > > > > > requirement implies that all development would stop until TC is
> > > green.
> > > > > > We never had old requirement work, neither we need to enforce it
> > now.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 2:59 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <
> > > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> 3.c
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>   1. All test suites *MUST* be run on TeamCity [3] before merge
> to
> > > > > master,
> > > > > >>   there *MUST NOT* be any test failures
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> 'New' word should be removed because we cant separate `new` and
> > `non
> > > > > new`
> > > > > >> failures.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Let's imagine example, we have 50 green runs in master. And PR
> > > Run-All
> > > > > >> contains this test failed. Is it new or not new? Actually we
> don't
> > > > know.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Existing requirement is about all TC must be green, so let's
> keep
> > it
> > > > as
> > > > > is.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> ср, 23 мая 2018 г. в 17:02, Vladimir Ozerov <
> vozerov@gridgain.com
> > >:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> Igniters,
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> I created review checklist on WIKI [1] and also fixed related
> > pages
> > > > > (e.g.
> > > > > >>> "How To Contribute"). Please let me know if you have any
> comments
> > > > > before
> > > > > >> I
> > > > > >>> go with public announce.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Vladimir.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> [1]
> > > > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Review+Checklist
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:10 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > > vozerov@gridgain.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> Ilya,
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> We define that exception messages *SHOULD* have clear
> > explanation
> > > on
> > > > > >> what
> > > > > >>>> is wrong. *SHOULD* mean that the rule should be followed
> unless
> > > > there
> > > > > >> is
> > > > > >>> a
> > > > > >>>> reason not to follow. In your case you refer to some
> unexpected
> > > > > >> behavior.
> > > > > >>>> I.e. an exceptional situation developer is not aware of. In
> this
> > > > case
> > > > > >> for
> > > > > >>>> sure we cannot force contributor to explain what is wrong,
> > > because,
> > > > > >> well,
> > > > > >>>> we don't know. This is why we relaxed the rule from *MUST* to
> > > > > *SHOULD*.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Ilya Kasnacheev <
> > > > > >>>> ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>> I don't think I quite understand how exception explanations
> > > should
> > > > > >> work.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Imagine we have the following exception:
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> // At least RuntimeException can be thrown by the code above
> > when
> > > > > >>>>> GridCacheContext is cleaned and there is
> > > > > >>>>> // an attempt to use cleaned resources.
> > > > > >>>>> U.error(log, "Unexpected exception during cache update", e);
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> I mean, we genuinely don't know what happened here.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Under new rules, what kind of "workaround" would that
> exception
> > > > > >> suggest?
> > > > > >>>>> "Try turning it off and then back on"?
> > > > > >>>>> What explanation how to resolve this exception can we offer?
> > > > "Please
> > > > > >>> write
> > > > > >>>>> to dev@apache.ignite.org or to Apache JIRA, and then wait
> for
> > a
> > > > > >> release
> > > > > >>>>> with fix?"
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> I'm really confused how we can implement 1.6 and 1.7 when
> > dealing
> > > > > with
> > > > > >>>>> messy real-world code.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Regards,
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> --
> > > > > >>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> 2018-05-10 11:39 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <
> > vozerov@gridgain.com
> > > >:
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Andrey, Anton, Alex
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Agree, *SHOULD* is more appropriate here.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Please see latest version below. Does anyone want to add or
> > > change
> > > > > >>>>>> something? Let's wait for several days for more feedback and
> > > then
> > > > > >>>>> publish
> > > > > >>>>>> and announce this list. Note that it would not be carved in
> > > stone
> > > > > >> and
> > > > > >>> we
> > > > > >>>>>> will be able to change it at any time if needed.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> 1) API
> > > > > >>>>>> 1.1) API compatibility *MUST* be maintained between minor
> > > > releases.
> > > > > >> Do
> > > > > >>>>> not
> > > > > >>>>>> remove existing methods or change their signatures,
> deprecate
> > > them
> > > > > >>>>> instead
> > > > > >>>>>> 1.2) Default behaviour "SHOULD NOT* be changed between minor
> > > > > >> releases,
> > > > > >>>>>> unless absolutely needed. If change is made, it *MUST* be
> > > > described
> > > > > >> in
> > > > > >>>>>> "Migration Guide"
> > > > > >>>>>> 1.3) New operation *MUST* be well-documented in code
> (javadoc,
> > > > > >>>>> dotnetdoc):
> > > > > >>>>>> documentation must contain method's purpose, description of
> > > > > >> parameters
> > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > >>>>>> how their values affect the outcome, description of return
> > value
> > > > and
> > > > > >>>>> it's
> > > > > >>>>>> default, behavior in negative cases, interaction with other
> > > > > >> operations
> > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > >>>>>> components
> > > > > >>>>>> 1.4) API parity between Java and .NET platforms *SHOULD* be
> > > > > >> maintained
> > > > > >>>>> when
> > > > > >>>>>> operation makes sense on both platforms. If method cannot be
> > > > > >>>>> implemented in
> > > > > >>>>>> a platform immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be created
> and
> > > > linked
> > > > > >>> to
> > > > > >>>>>> current ticket
> > > > > >>>>>> 1.5) API parity between thin clients (Java, .NET) *SHOULD*
> be
> > > > > >>> maintained
> > > > > >>>>>> when operation makes sense on several clients. If method
> > cannot
> > > be
> > > > > >>>>>> implemented in a client immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST*
> be
> > > > > >> created
> > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > >>>>>> linked to current ticket
> > > > > >>>>>> 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user **SHOULD** have
> > explanation
> > > > how
> > > > > >>> to
> > > > > >>>>>> resolve, workaround or debug an error
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> 2) Compatibility
> > > > > >>>>>> 2.1) Persistence backward compatibility *MUST* be maintained
> > > > between
> > > > > >>>>> minor
> > > > > >>>>>> releases. It should be possible to start newer version on
> data
> > > > files
> > > > > >>>>>> created by the previous version
> > > > > >>>>>> 2.2) Thin client forward and backward compatibility *SHOULD*
> > be
> > > > > >>>>> maintained
> > > > > >>>>>> between two consecutive minor releases. If compatibility
> > cannot
> > > be
> > > > > >>>>>> maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
> > > > > >>>>>> 2.3) JDBC and ODBC forward and backward compatibility
> *SHOULD*
> > > be
> > > > > >>>>>> maintained between two consecutive minor releases. If
> > > > compatibility
> > > > > >>>>> cannot
> > > > > >>>>>> be maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> 3) Tests
> > > > > >>>>>> 3.1) New functionality *MUST* be covered with unit tests for
> > > both
> > > > > >>>>> positive
> > > > > >>>>>> and negative use cases
> > > > > >>>>>> 3.2) All test suites *MUST* be run before merge to
> > master..There
> > > > > >>> *MUST*
> > > > > >>>>> be
> > > > > >>>>>> no new test failures
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> 4) Code style *MUST* be followed as per Ignite's Coding
> > > Guidelines
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Vladimir.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 1:05 PM, Andrey Kuznetsov <
> > > > stkuzma@gmail.com
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> Anton,
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> I agree, *MUST* for exception reasons and *SHOULD* for ways
> > of
> > > > > >>>>> resolution
> > > > > >>>>>>> sound clearer.
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> 2018-05-08 12:56 GMT+03:00 Anton Vinogradov <av@apache.org
> >:
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Andrey,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> How about
> > > > > >>>>>>>> 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user *MUST* have
> explanation
> > > of
> > > > > >>>>>>> workaround
> > > > > >>>>>>>> and contain original error.
> > > > > >>>>>>>> All exceptions thrown to a user *SHOULD* have explanation
> > how
> > > to
> > > > > >>>>>> resolve
> > > > > >>>>>>> if
> > > > > >>>>>>>> possible.
> > > > > >>>>>>>> ?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> вт, 8 мая 2018 г. в 12:26, Andrey Kuznetsov <
> > > stkuzma@gmail.com
> > > > > >>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Vladimir, checklist looks pleasant enough for me.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> I'd like to suggest one minor change. In 1.6 *MUST* seems
> > to
> > > > > >> be
> > > > > >>>>> too
> > > > > >>>>>>>> strict,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> *SHOULD* would be enough. It can be frustrating for API
> > user
> > > > > >> if
> > > > > >>> I
> > > > > >>>>>>> explain
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> how to fix NPEs in a trivial way, for example.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> 2018-05-08 11:34 GMT+03:00 Anton Vinogradov <
> av@apache.org
> > >:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Alex,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> It is not sounds like that, obviously.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Tests should cover all negative and positive cases.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> You should add enough tests to cover all cases.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Sometimes one test can cover more than one case, so two
> > > > > >> tests
> > > > > >>>>> *CAN*
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> partially check same things.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> In case some cases already covered you should not create
> > > > > >>>>>> duplicates.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> вт, 8 мая 2018 г. в 10:19, Александр Меньшиков <
> > > > > >>>>>> sharplermc@gmail.com
> > > > > >>>>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Vladimir, the 3.1 is a bit unclear for me. Which code
> > > > > >>>>> coverage is
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> acceptable? Now it sounds like two tests are enough
> (one
> > > > > >> for
> > > > > >>>>>>> positive
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> one for negative cases).
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> 2018-05-07 23:09 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > > > > >>>>>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Is this list on the Wiki?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 7:26 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the checklist I have at the moment. Please
> let
> > > > > >>> me
> > > > > >>>>>> know
> > > > > >>>>>>> if
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> you
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> any comments on existing items, or want to add or
> > > > > >> remove
> > > > > >>>>>>>> anything.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> It
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> looks
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> like we may have not only strict rules, but *nice to
> > > > > >>> have*
> > > > > >>>>>>> points
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> here
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> as
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> well with help of *MUST*, *SHOULD* and *MAY* words as
> > > > > >>> per
> > > > > >>>>>>> RFC2119
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [1].
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> So
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> please feel free to suggest optional items as well.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) API
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.1) API compatibility *MUST* be maintained between
> > > > > >>> minor
> > > > > >>>>>>>> releases.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Do
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> remove existing methods or change their signatures,
> > > > > >>>>> deprecate
> > > > > >>>>>>>> them
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> instead
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.2) Default behaviour "SHOULD NOT* be changed
> between
> > > > > >>>>> minor
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> releases,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> unless absolutely needed. If change is made, it
> *MUST*
> > > > > >>> be
> > > > > >>>>>>>> described
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Migration Guide"
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.3) New operation *MUST* be well-documented in code
> > > > > >>>>>> (javadoc,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> dotnetdoc):
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> documentation must contain method's purpose,
> > > > > >> description
> > > > > >>>>> of
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> parameters
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> how their values affect the outcome, description of
> > > > > >>> return
> > > > > >>>>>>> value
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> it's
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> default, behavior in negative cases, interaction with
> > > > > >>>>> other
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> operations
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> components
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.4) API parity between Java and .NET platforms
> > > > > >> *SHOULD*
> > > > > >>>>> be
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> maintained
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> when
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> operation makes sense on both platforms. If method
> > > > > >>> cannot
> > > > > >>>>> be
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> implemented
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a platform immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be
> > > > > >>> created
> > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> linked
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> current ticket
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.5) API parity between thin clients (Java, .NET)
> > > > > >>>>> *SHOULD* be
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> maintained
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> when operation makes sense on several clients. If
> > > > > >> method
> > > > > >>>>>> cannot
> > > > > >>>>>>>> be
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> implemented in a client immediately, new JIRA ticket
> > > > > >>>>> *MUST*
> > > > > >>>>>> be
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> created
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> linked to current ticket
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user *MUST* have
> > > > > >>>>> explanation
> > > > > >>>>>>> how
> > > > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> resolve, workaround or debug an error
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Compatibility
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.1) Persistence backward compatibility *MUST* be
> > > > > >>>>> maintained
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> between
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> minor
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> releases. It should be possible to start newer
> version
> > > > > >>> on
> > > > > >>>>>> data
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> files
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> created by the previous version
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.2) Thin client forward and backward compatibility
> > > > > >>>>> *SHOULD*
> > > > > >>>>>> be
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> maintained
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> between two consecutive minor releases. If
> > > > > >> compatibility
> > > > > >>>>>> cannot
> > > > > >>>>>>>> be
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration
> Guide"
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.3) JDBC and ODBC forward and backward compatibility
> > > > > >>>>>> *SHOULD*
> > > > > >>>>>>> be
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> maintained between two consecutive minor releases. If
> > > > > >>>>>>>> compatibility
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> cannot
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> be maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration
> > > > > >>> Guide"
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) Tests
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.1) New functionality *MUST* be covered with unit
> > > > > >> tests
> > > > > >>>>> for
> > > > > >>>>>>> both
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> positive
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and negative use cases
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.2) All test suites *MUST* be run before merge to
> > > > > >>>>>>> master..There
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> *MUST*
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> no new test failures
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 4) Code style *MUST* be followed as per Ignite's
> > > > > >> Coding
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Guidelines
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Vladimir.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Dmitry,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I'll do that in the nearest days.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters, the idea was related to small
> > > > > >> refactorings
> > > > > >>>>>>>> co-located
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> with
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> main
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Main change itself indicates that existing code did
> > > > > >>> not
> > > > > >>>>>> meet
> > > > > >>>>>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> criteria
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of practice. Approving of standalone refactorings
> > > > > >>>>> instead
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> contradicts
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> principle don't touch if it works. So I still like
> > > > > >>>>> idea of
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> co-located
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes improving code, javadocs, style, etc.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But let's not argue about this point now, let's
> > > > > >>>>> summarize
> > > > > >>>>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> undisputed
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> points and add it to the wiki. Vladimir, would you
> > > > > >>>>> please
> > > > > >>>>>> do
> > > > > >>>>>>>> it?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 25 апр. 2018 г. в 16:42, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> nizhikov@apache.org
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with Vova.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't fix if it works!
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you 100% sure then it a useful addition to the
> > > > > >>>>>> product
> > > > > >>>>>>> -
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> just
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> make
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate ticket.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> В Ср, 25/04/2018 в 11:44 +0300, Vladimir Ozerov
> > > > > >>>>> пишет:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guys,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem with in-place refactorings is that
> > > > > >>> you
> > > > > >>>>>>>> increase
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> affected
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scope.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not uncommon to break compatibility or
> > > > > >>> public
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> contracts
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> minor things. E.g. recently we decided drop
> > > > > >>>>> org.jsr166
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> package
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> favor
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Java 8 classes. Innocent change. Result -
> > > > > >> broken
> > > > > >>>>>>> storage.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Another
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is conflicts. It is not uncommon to have
> > > > > >>> long-lived
> > > > > >>>>>>>> branches
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> which
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to merge with master over and over again. And a
> > > > > >>>>> lot of
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> refactorings
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conflicts. It is much easier to resolve them if
> > > > > >>> you
> > > > > >>>>>> know
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> logic
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affected as opposed to cases when you need to
> > > > > >>>>> resolve
> > > > > >>>>>>> both
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> renames
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> method extractions along with business-logic
> > > > > >>>>> changes.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to repeat - if you have a time for
> > > > > >>>>>> refactoring
> > > > > >>>>>>>> then
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> you
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitely
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a time to extract these changes to
> > > > > >> separate
> > > > > >>> PR
> > > > > >>>>>> and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> submit a
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ticket. I am quite understand what "low
> > > > > >> priority"
> > > > > >>>>> do
> > > > > >>>>>> you
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> mean
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> if
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> you
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> refactorings on your own.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 10:52 PM, Andrey
> > > > > >>> Kuznetsov
> > > > > >>>>> <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> stkuzma@gmail.com
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once again, I beg for "small refactoring
> > > > > >>>>> permission"
> > > > > >>>>>>> in
> > > > > >>>>>>>> a
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> checklist.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As of
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> today, separate tickets for small
> > > > > >> refactorings
> > > > > >>>>> has
> > > > > >>>>>>>> lowest
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> priority,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they neither fix any flaw nor add new
> > > > > >>>>> functionality.
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Also,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attempts to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make issue-related code safer / cleaner /
> > > > > >> more
> > > > > >>>>>>> readable
> > > > > >>>>>>>> in
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> "real"
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pull
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requests are typically rejected, since they
> > > > > >>>>>> contradict
> > > > > >>>>>>>> our
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> current
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guidelines.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I understand this will require a bit more
> > > > > >>> effort
> > > > > >>>>>> from
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committer/maintainer,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but otherwise we will get constantly
> > > > > >> degrading
> > > > > >>>>> code
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> quality.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018-04-24 18:52 GMT+03:00 Eduard Shangareev
> > > > > >> <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eduard.shangareev@gmail.com
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vladimir,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am not talking about
> > > > > >> massive/sophisticated
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> refactoring.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> But
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that ask to extract some methods should be
> > > > > >> OK
> > > > > >>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>> do
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> without
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> an
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extra
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ticket.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A checklist shouldn't be necessarily a set
> > > > > >> of
> > > > > >>>>>>> certain
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> rules
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> but
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could include suggestion and reminders.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 6:39 PM, Vladimir
> > > > > >>>>> Ozerov <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ed,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Refactoring is a separate task. If you
> > > > > >>> would
> > > > > >>>>>> like
> > > > > >>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> rework
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exchange
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - please do this in a ticket "Refactor
> > > > > >>>>> exchange
> > > > > >>>>>>>> task",
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> nobody
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this. This is just a matter of creating
> > > > > >>>>> separate
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> ticket
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one have a time for refactoring, it
> > > > > >> should
> > > > > >>>>> not
> > > > > >>>>>> be
> > > > > >>>>>>> a
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> problem
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> him to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spend several minutes on JIRA and GitHub.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As far as documentation - what you
> > > > > >> describe
> > > > > >>>>> is
> > > > > >>>>>>>> normal
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> review
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reviewer might want to ask contributor to
> > > > > >>> fix
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> something.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Checklist
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different thing - this is a set of rules
> > > > > >>>>> which
> > > > > >>>>>>> must
> > > > > >>>>>>>> be
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> followed
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do not understand how you can define
> > > > > >>>>>>> documentation
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checklist.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Same problem with logging - what is
> > > > > >>> "enough"?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Eduard
> > > > > >>>>>>> Shangareev <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't understand why you are so
> > > > > >> against
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> refactoring.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Code already smells like hell. Methods
> > > > > >>> 200+
> > > > > >>>>>> line
> > > > > >>>>>>>> is
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> normal.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Exchange
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is asking to be separated on several
> > > > > >> one.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Transaction
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> code
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> few people.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we separate refactoring from
> > > > > >>>>> development it
> > > > > >>>>>>>> would
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> mean
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no one
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do it.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Documentation.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everything which was asked by reviewers
> > > > > >>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>> clarify
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> idea
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should be
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reflected
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the code.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) Logging.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Logging should be enough to
> > > > > >> troubleshoot
> > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>> problem
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> if
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comes
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user-list with an issue in the code.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 7:06 PM, Dmitry
> > > > > >>>>>> Pavlov <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Igniters,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 to idea of checklist.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 to refactoring and documenting
> > > > > >> code
> > > > > >>>>>> related
> > > > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ticket
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +/-20
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOC
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we start to do it as part of our
> > > > > >>>>> regular
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> contribution,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better, it would became common
> > > > > >> practice
> > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > >>>>>>> part
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Apache
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> development culure.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we will hope we will have free
> > > > > >> time
> > > > > >>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>> submit
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> separate
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patch
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someday
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have patience to complete
> > > > > >>>>> patch-submission
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> process,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> code
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remain
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undocumented and poor-readable.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sincerely,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пт, 20 апр. 2018 г. в 18:56,
> > > > > >> Александр
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Меньшиков <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sharplermc@gmail.com
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4) Metrics.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partially +1
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It makes sense to have some minimal
> > > > > >>>>> code
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> coverage
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code in
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMHO.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, we can limit the cyclomatic
> > > > > >>>>>> complexity
> > > > > >>>>>>>> of
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6) Refactoring
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -1
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I understand why people want to
> > > > > >>>>> refactor
> > > > > >>>>>> old
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> code.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I think refactoring should be
> > > > > >>>>> always a
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> separate
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> task.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And it's better to remove all
> > > > > >>>>> refactoring
> > > > > >>>>>>> from
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> PR,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> if
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> it's
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the issue.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018-04-20 16:54 GMT+03:00 Andrey
> > > > > >>>>>> Kuznetsov
> > > > > >>>>>>> <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stkuzma@gmail.com>:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What about adding the following
> > > > > >>> item
> > > > > >>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> checklist:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adds
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new functionality, then unit
> > > > > >> tests
> > > > > >>>>>> should
> > > > > >>>>>>>> also
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provided, if
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technically possible?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for refactorings, in fact they
> > > > > >>> are
> > > > > >>>>>>>> strongly
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discouraged
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> today
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unclear reason. Let's permit to
> > > > > >>> make
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> refactorings
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checklist
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussed. (Of cource,
> > > > > >> refactoring
> > > > > >>>>>> should
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> relate
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solved.)
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018-04-20 16:16 GMT+03:00
> > > > > >> Vladimir
> > > > > >>>>>>> Ozerov <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vozerov@gridgain.com
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Ed,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately some of these
> > > > > >>> points
> > > > > >>>>> are
> > > > > >>>>>>> not
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> good
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> candidates
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checklist because of these:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - It must be clear and disallow
> > > > > >>>>>>> *multiple
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interpretations*
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - It must be *lightweight*,
> > > > > >>>>> otherwise
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Ignite
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> development
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> become a
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nightmare
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We cannot have "nice to have"
> > > > > >>>>> points
> > > > > >>>>>>> here.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Checklist
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question "is ticket eligible to
> > > > > >>> be
> > > > > >>>>>>>> merged?"
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Code style.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Documentation
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -1, it is impossible to define
> > > > > >>>>> what is
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "well-documented". A
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> piece
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could be obvious for one
> > > > > >>>>> contributor,
> > > > > >>>>>>> and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> non-obvious
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case this is not a blocker for
> > > > > >>>>> merge.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Instead,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> during
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ask
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementer to add more docs,
> > > > > >> but
> > > > > >>>>> it
> > > > > >>>>>>>> cannot
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> forced.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) Logging
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -1, same problem - what is
> > > > > >>> "enough
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> logging?".
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Enough
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whom?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand whether it is enough
> > > > > >>> or
> > > > > >>>>>> not?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4) Metrics
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -1, no clear boundaries, and
> > > > > >>>>> decision
> > > > > >>>>>> on
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> whether
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> metrics
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> added
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not should be performed during
> > > > > >>>>> design
> > > > > >>>>>>>> phase.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> As
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perfectly
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valid to ask contributor to add
> > > > > >>>>>> metrics
> > > > > >>>>>>>> with
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> clear
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this is not part of the
> > > > > >>> checklist.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5) TC status
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1, already mentioned
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6) Refactoring
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Strong -1. OOP is a slippery
> > > > > >>> slope,
> > > > > >>>>>>> there
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> are
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> no
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> good
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and bad
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> receipts
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all cases, hence it cannot be
> > > > > >>> used
> > > > > >>>>> in
> > > > > >>>>>> a
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> checklist.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can borrow useful rules from
> > > > > >>>>> p.2,
> > > > > >>>>>> p.3
> > > > > >>>>>>>> and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> p.4
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> if
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clear
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions on how to measure
> > > > > >>> them.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vladimir.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:50
> > > > > >> PM,
> > > > > >>>>>> Eduard
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Shangareev <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eduard.shangareev@gmail.com>
> > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, I want to add some
> > > > > >>>>> technical
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> requirement.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Code style.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The code needs to be
> > > > > >> formatted
> > > > > >>>>>>> according
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> coding
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guidelines
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Re: Ticket review checklist

[Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>]

Dmitry,

New failure is a failure hasn't happened on previous runs. If it do
happened, then contributor should see if it is a flaky or not through local
and TC runs. The same works for timeout suites.
Current statement in "Review Checklist" that there are should be no failed
tests is not applicable to real word. Almost every patch is pushed to
repository with test failures.

On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 2:22 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <dp...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Vladimir, could you provide definition what is new failure? how do you
> know it is new or not?
>
> And please forget for a moment you're Ignite expert & veteran, imagine you
> are newcomer.
>
> I can't find any criteria that can be used by newbie to come to the
> conclusion that test is new. Patch is accepted by reviewer, so it should be
> up to him to correctly register failures in tickets with
> MakeTeamCityGreenAgain label and mute unimportant tests.
>
> пн, 4 июн. 2018 г. в 11:32, Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>:
>
> > Dmitry,
> >
> > I still do not see how new patches could be accepted with this
> requirement
> > in place. Consider the following case: I created a patch and run it on
> TC,
> > observed N failures, verified through TC history that none if them are
> new.
> > Am I eligible to push the commit?
> >
> > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 3:11 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <dp...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Petr, good point. It is more intuitive, we should mark test we can
> ignore
> > > by mute.
> > >
> > > So Vladimir, you or other Ignite veteran can mute test, if can say it
> is
> > > not important.
> > >
> > > чт, 24 мая 2018 г. в 15:07, Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > > Why cannot we mute (and file corresponding tickets) all test failures
> > > > (including flaky) to some date and start initiative Green TC?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > On 24 May 2018, at 15:04, Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Dmitry,
> > > > >
> > > > > We cannot add this requirements, because we do have failures on TC.
> > > This
> > > > > requirement implies that all development would stop until TC is
> > green.
> > > > > We never had old requirement work, neither we need to enforce it
> now.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 2:59 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <
> > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> 3.c
> > > > >>
> > > > >>   1. All test suites *MUST* be run on TeamCity [3] before merge to
> > > > master,
> > > > >>   there *MUST NOT* be any test failures
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 'New' word should be removed because we cant separate `new` and
> `non
> > > > new`
> > > > >> failures.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Let's imagine example, we have 50 green runs in master. And PR
> > Run-All
> > > > >> contains this test failed. Is it new or not new? Actually we don't
> > > know.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Existing requirement is about all TC must be green, so let's keep
> it
> > > as
> > > > is.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> ср, 23 мая 2018 г. в 17:02, Vladimir Ozerov <vozerov@gridgain.com
> >:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> Igniters,
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I created review checklist on WIKI [1] and also fixed related
> pages
> > > > (e.g.
> > > > >>> "How To Contribute"). Please let me know if you have any comments
> > > > before
> > > > >> I
> > > > >>> go with public announce.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Vladimir.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> [1]
> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Review+Checklist
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:10 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > vozerov@gridgain.com
> > > > >
> > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> Ilya,
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> We define that exception messages *SHOULD* have clear
> explanation
> > on
> > > > >> what
> > > > >>>> is wrong. *SHOULD* mean that the rule should be followed unless
> > > there
> > > > >> is
> > > > >>> a
> > > > >>>> reason not to follow. In your case you refer to some unexpected
> > > > >> behavior.
> > > > >>>> I.e. an exceptional situation developer is not aware of. In this
> > > case
> > > > >> for
> > > > >>>> sure we cannot force contributor to explain what is wrong,
> > because,
> > > > >> well,
> > > > >>>> we don't know. This is why we relaxed the rule from *MUST* to
> > > > *SHOULD*.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Ilya Kasnacheev <
> > > > >>>> ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> I don't think I quite understand how exception explanations
> > should
> > > > >> work.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Imagine we have the following exception:
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> // At least RuntimeException can be thrown by the code above
> when
> > > > >>>>> GridCacheContext is cleaned and there is
> > > > >>>>> // an attempt to use cleaned resources.
> > > > >>>>> U.error(log, "Unexpected exception during cache update", e);
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> I mean, we genuinely don't know what happened here.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Under new rules, what kind of "workaround" would that exception
> > > > >> suggest?
> > > > >>>>> "Try turning it off and then back on"?
> > > > >>>>> What explanation how to resolve this exception can we offer?
> > > "Please
> > > > >>> write
> > > > >>>>> to dev@apache.ignite.org or to Apache JIRA, and then wait for
> a
> > > > >> release
> > > > >>>>> with fix?"
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> I'm really confused how we can implement 1.6 and 1.7 when
> dealing
> > > > with
> > > > >>>>> messy real-world code.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Regards,
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> --
> > > > >>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> 2018-05-10 11:39 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <
> vozerov@gridgain.com
> > >:
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Andrey, Anton, Alex
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Agree, *SHOULD* is more appropriate here.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Please see latest version below. Does anyone want to add or
> > change
> > > > >>>>>> something? Let's wait for several days for more feedback and
> > then
> > > > >>>>> publish
> > > > >>>>>> and announce this list. Note that it would not be carved in
> > stone
> > > > >> and
> > > > >>> we
> > > > >>>>>> will be able to change it at any time if needed.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> 1) API
> > > > >>>>>> 1.1) API compatibility *MUST* be maintained between minor
> > > releases.
> > > > >> Do
> > > > >>>>> not
> > > > >>>>>> remove existing methods or change their signatures, deprecate
> > them
> > > > >>>>> instead
> > > > >>>>>> 1.2) Default behaviour "SHOULD NOT* be changed between minor
> > > > >> releases,
> > > > >>>>>> unless absolutely needed. If change is made, it *MUST* be
> > > described
> > > > >> in
> > > > >>>>>> "Migration Guide"
> > > > >>>>>> 1.3) New operation *MUST* be well-documented in code (javadoc,
> > > > >>>>> dotnetdoc):
> > > > >>>>>> documentation must contain method's purpose, description of
> > > > >> parameters
> > > > >>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>> how their values affect the outcome, description of return
> value
> > > and
> > > > >>>>> it's
> > > > >>>>>> default, behavior in negative cases, interaction with other
> > > > >> operations
> > > > >>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>> components
> > > > >>>>>> 1.4) API parity between Java and .NET platforms *SHOULD* be
> > > > >> maintained
> > > > >>>>> when
> > > > >>>>>> operation makes sense on both platforms. If method cannot be
> > > > >>>>> implemented in
> > > > >>>>>> a platform immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be created and
> > > linked
> > > > >>> to
> > > > >>>>>> current ticket
> > > > >>>>>> 1.5) API parity between thin clients (Java, .NET) *SHOULD* be
> > > > >>> maintained
> > > > >>>>>> when operation makes sense on several clients. If method
> cannot
> > be
> > > > >>>>>> implemented in a client immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be
> > > > >> created
> > > > >>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>> linked to current ticket
> > > > >>>>>> 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user **SHOULD** have
> explanation
> > > how
> > > > >>> to
> > > > >>>>>> resolve, workaround or debug an error
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> 2) Compatibility
> > > > >>>>>> 2.1) Persistence backward compatibility *MUST* be maintained
> > > between
> > > > >>>>> minor
> > > > >>>>>> releases. It should be possible to start newer version on data
> > > files
> > > > >>>>>> created by the previous version
> > > > >>>>>> 2.2) Thin client forward and backward compatibility *SHOULD*
> be
> > > > >>>>> maintained
> > > > >>>>>> between two consecutive minor releases. If compatibility
> cannot
> > be
> > > > >>>>>> maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
> > > > >>>>>> 2.3) JDBC and ODBC forward and backward compatibility *SHOULD*
> > be
> > > > >>>>>> maintained between two consecutive minor releases. If
> > > compatibility
> > > > >>>>> cannot
> > > > >>>>>> be maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> 3) Tests
> > > > >>>>>> 3.1) New functionality *MUST* be covered with unit tests for
> > both
> > > > >>>>> positive
> > > > >>>>>> and negative use cases
> > > > >>>>>> 3.2) All test suites *MUST* be run before merge to
> master..There
> > > > >>> *MUST*
> > > > >>>>> be
> > > > >>>>>> no new test failures
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> 4) Code style *MUST* be followed as per Ignite's Coding
> > Guidelines
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Vladimir.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 1:05 PM, Andrey Kuznetsov <
> > > stkuzma@gmail.com
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Anton,
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> I agree, *MUST* for exception reasons and *SHOULD* for ways
> of
> > > > >>>>> resolution
> > > > >>>>>>> sound clearer.
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> 2018-05-08 12:56 GMT+03:00 Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Andrey,
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> How about
> > > > >>>>>>>> 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user *MUST* have explanation
> > of
> > > > >>>>>>> workaround
> > > > >>>>>>>> and contain original error.
> > > > >>>>>>>> All exceptions thrown to a user *SHOULD* have explanation
> how
> > to
> > > > >>>>>> resolve
> > > > >>>>>>> if
> > > > >>>>>>>> possible.
> > > > >>>>>>>> ?
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> вт, 8 мая 2018 г. в 12:26, Andrey Kuznetsov <
> > stkuzma@gmail.com
> > > > >>> :
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Vladimir, checklist looks pleasant enough for me.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> I'd like to suggest one minor change. In 1.6 *MUST* seems
> to
> > > > >> be
> > > > >>>>> too
> > > > >>>>>>>> strict,
> > > > >>>>>>>>> *SHOULD* would be enough. It can be frustrating for API
> user
> > > > >> if
> > > > >>> I
> > > > >>>>>>> explain
> > > > >>>>>>>>> how to fix NPEs in a trivial way, for example.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> 2018-05-08 11:34 GMT+03:00 Anton Vinogradov <av@apache.org
> >:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Alex,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> It is not sounds like that, obviously.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Tests should cover all negative and positive cases.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> You should add enough tests to cover all cases.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Sometimes one test can cover more than one case, so two
> > > > >> tests
> > > > >>>>> *CAN*
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> partially check same things.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> In case some cases already covered you should not create
> > > > >>>>>> duplicates.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> вт, 8 мая 2018 г. в 10:19, Александр Меньшиков <
> > > > >>>>>> sharplermc@gmail.com
> > > > >>>>>>>> :
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Vladimir, the 3.1 is a bit unclear for me. Which code
> > > > >>>>> coverage is
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> acceptable? Now it sounds like two tests are enough (one
> > > > >> for
> > > > >>>>>>> positive
> > > > >>>>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> one for negative cases).
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> 2018-05-07 23:09 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > > > >>>>>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org
> > > > >>>>>>>>> :
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Is this list on the Wiki?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 7:26 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > > >>>>>>>>> vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the checklist I have at the moment. Please let
> > > > >>> me
> > > > >>>>>> know
> > > > >>>>>>> if
> > > > >>>>>>>>> you
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> any comments on existing items, or want to add or
> > > > >> remove
> > > > >>>>>>>> anything.
> > > > >>>>>>>>> It
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> looks
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> like we may have not only strict rules, but *nice to
> > > > >>> have*
> > > > >>>>>>> points
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> here
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> as
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> well with help of *MUST*, *SHOULD* and *MAY* words as
> > > > >>> per
> > > > >>>>>>> RFC2119
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> [1].
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> So
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> please feel free to suggest optional items as well.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) API
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.1) API compatibility *MUST* be maintained between
> > > > >>> minor
> > > > >>>>>>>> releases.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Do
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> remove existing methods or change their signatures,
> > > > >>>>> deprecate
> > > > >>>>>>>> them
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> instead
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.2) Default behaviour "SHOULD NOT* be changed between
> > > > >>>>> minor
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> releases,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> unless absolutely needed. If change is made, it *MUST*
> > > > >>> be
> > > > >>>>>>>> described
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Migration Guide"
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.3) New operation *MUST* be well-documented in code
> > > > >>>>>> (javadoc,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> dotnetdoc):
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> documentation must contain method's purpose,
> > > > >> description
> > > > >>>>> of
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> parameters
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> how their values affect the outcome, description of
> > > > >>> return
> > > > >>>>>>> value
> > > > >>>>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> it's
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> default, behavior in negative cases, interaction with
> > > > >>>>> other
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> operations
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> components
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.4) API parity between Java and .NET platforms
> > > > >> *SHOULD*
> > > > >>>>> be
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> maintained
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> when
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> operation makes sense on both platforms. If method
> > > > >>> cannot
> > > > >>>>> be
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> implemented
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a platform immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be
> > > > >>> created
> > > > >>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>> linked
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> current ticket
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.5) API parity between thin clients (Java, .NET)
> > > > >>>>> *SHOULD* be
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> maintained
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> when operation makes sense on several clients. If
> > > > >> method
> > > > >>>>>> cannot
> > > > >>>>>>>> be
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> implemented in a client immediately, new JIRA ticket
> > > > >>>>> *MUST*
> > > > >>>>>> be
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> created
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> linked to current ticket
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user *MUST* have
> > > > >>>>> explanation
> > > > >>>>>>> how
> > > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> resolve, workaround or debug an error
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Compatibility
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.1) Persistence backward compatibility *MUST* be
> > > > >>>>> maintained
> > > > >>>>>>>>> between
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> minor
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> releases. It should be possible to start newer version
> > > > >>> on
> > > > >>>>>> data
> > > > >>>>>>>>> files
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> created by the previous version
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.2) Thin client forward and backward compatibility
> > > > >>>>> *SHOULD*
> > > > >>>>>> be
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> maintained
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> between two consecutive minor releases. If
> > > > >> compatibility
> > > > >>>>>> cannot
> > > > >>>>>>>> be
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.3) JDBC and ODBC forward and backward compatibility
> > > > >>>>>> *SHOULD*
> > > > >>>>>>> be
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> maintained between two consecutive minor releases. If
> > > > >>>>>>>> compatibility
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> cannot
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> be maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration
> > > > >>> Guide"
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) Tests
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.1) New functionality *MUST* be covered with unit
> > > > >> tests
> > > > >>>>> for
> > > > >>>>>>> both
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> positive
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and negative use cases
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.2) All test suites *MUST* be run before merge to
> > > > >>>>>>> master..There
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> *MUST*
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> no new test failures
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 4) Code style *MUST* be followed as per Ignite's
> > > > >> Coding
> > > > >>>>>>>> Guidelines
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Vladimir.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Dmitry,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I'll do that in the nearest days.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters, the idea was related to small
> > > > >> refactorings
> > > > >>>>>>>> co-located
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> with
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> main
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Main change itself indicates that existing code did
> > > > >>> not
> > > > >>>>>> meet
> > > > >>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> criteria
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of practice. Approving of standalone refactorings
> > > > >>>>> instead
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> contradicts
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> principle don't touch if it works. So I still like
> > > > >>>>> idea of
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> co-located
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes improving code, javadocs, style, etc.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But let's not argue about this point now, let's
> > > > >>>>> summarize
> > > > >>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> undisputed
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> points and add it to the wiki. Vladimir, would you
> > > > >>>>> please
> > > > >>>>>> do
> > > > >>>>>>>> it?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 25 апр. 2018 г. в 16:42, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > >>>>>>>>> nizhikov@apache.org
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with Vova.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't fix if it works!
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you 100% sure then it a useful addition to the
> > > > >>>>>> product
> > > > >>>>>>> -
> > > > >>>>>>>>> just
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> make
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate ticket.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> В Ср, 25/04/2018 в 11:44 +0300, Vladimir Ozerov
> > > > >>>>> пишет:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guys,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem with in-place refactorings is that
> > > > >>> you
> > > > >>>>>>>> increase
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> affected
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scope.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not uncommon to break compatibility or
> > > > >>> public
> > > > >>>>>>>>> contracts
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> minor things. E.g. recently we decided drop
> > > > >>>>> org.jsr166
> > > > >>>>>>>>> package
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> favor
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Java 8 classes. Innocent change. Result -
> > > > >> broken
> > > > >>>>>>> storage.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Another
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is conflicts. It is not uncommon to have
> > > > >>> long-lived
> > > > >>>>>>>> branches
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> which
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to merge with master over and over again. And a
> > > > >>>>> lot of
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> refactorings
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conflicts. It is much easier to resolve them if
> > > > >>> you
> > > > >>>>>> know
> > > > >>>>>>>>> that
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> logic
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affected as opposed to cases when you need to
> > > > >>>>> resolve
> > > > >>>>>>> both
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> renames
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> method extractions along with business-logic
> > > > >>>>> changes.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to repeat - if you have a time for
> > > > >>>>>> refactoring
> > > > >>>>>>>> then
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> you
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitely
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a time to extract these changes to
> > > > >> separate
> > > > >>> PR
> > > > >>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> submit a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ticket. I am quite understand what "low
> > > > >> priority"
> > > > >>>>> do
> > > > >>>>>> you
> > > > >>>>>>>>> mean
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> if
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> you
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> refactorings on your own.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 10:52 PM, Andrey
> > > > >>> Kuznetsov
> > > > >>>>> <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> stkuzma@gmail.com
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once again, I beg for "small refactoring
> > > > >>>>> permission"
> > > > >>>>>>> in
> > > > >>>>>>>> a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> checklist.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As of
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> today, separate tickets for small
> > > > >> refactorings
> > > > >>>>> has
> > > > >>>>>>>> lowest
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> priority,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they neither fix any flaw nor add new
> > > > >>>>> functionality.
> > > > >>>>>>>> Also,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attempts to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make issue-related code safer / cleaner /
> > > > >> more
> > > > >>>>>>> readable
> > > > >>>>>>>> in
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> "real"
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pull
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requests are typically rejected, since they
> > > > >>>>>> contradict
> > > > >>>>>>>> our
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> current
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guidelines.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I understand this will require a bit more
> > > > >>> effort
> > > > >>>>>> from
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committer/maintainer,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but otherwise we will get constantly
> > > > >> degrading
> > > > >>>>> code
> > > > >>>>>>>>> quality.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018-04-24 18:52 GMT+03:00 Eduard Shangareev
> > > > >> <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eduard.shangareev@gmail.com
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vladimir,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am not talking about
> > > > >> massive/sophisticated
> > > > >>>>>>>>> refactoring.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> But
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that ask to extract some methods should be
> > > > >> OK
> > > > >>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>> do
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> without
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> an
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extra
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ticket.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A checklist shouldn't be necessarily a set
> > > > >> of
> > > > >>>>>>> certain
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> rules
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> but
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could include suggestion and reminders.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 6:39 PM, Vladimir
> > > > >>>>> Ozerov <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ed,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Refactoring is a separate task. If you
> > > > >>> would
> > > > >>>>>> like
> > > > >>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> rework
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exchange
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - please do this in a ticket "Refactor
> > > > >>>>> exchange
> > > > >>>>>>>> task",
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> nobody
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this. This is just a matter of creating
> > > > >>>>> separate
> > > > >>>>>>>>> ticket
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one have a time for refactoring, it
> > > > >> should
> > > > >>>>> not
> > > > >>>>>> be
> > > > >>>>>>> a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> problem
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> him to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spend several minutes on JIRA and GitHub.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As far as documentation - what you
> > > > >> describe
> > > > >>>>> is
> > > > >>>>>>>> normal
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> review
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reviewer might want to ask contributor to
> > > > >>> fix
> > > > >>>>>>>>> something.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Checklist
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different thing - this is a set of rules
> > > > >>>>> which
> > > > >>>>>>> must
> > > > >>>>>>>> be
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> followed
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do not understand how you can define
> > > > >>>>>>> documentation
> > > > >>>>>>>>> in
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checklist.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Same problem with logging - what is
> > > > >>> "enough"?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Eduard
> > > > >>>>>>> Shangareev <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't understand why you are so
> > > > >> against
> > > > >>>>>>>>> refactoring.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Code already smells like hell. Methods
> > > > >>> 200+
> > > > >>>>>> line
> > > > >>>>>>>> is
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> normal.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Exchange
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is asking to be separated on several
> > > > >> one.
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Transaction
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> code
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> few people.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we separate refactoring from
> > > > >>>>> development it
> > > > >>>>>>>> would
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> mean
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no one
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do it.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Documentation.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everything which was asked by reviewers
> > > > >>> to
> > > > >>>>>>> clarify
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> idea
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should be
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reflected
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the code.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) Logging.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Logging should be enough to
> > > > >> troubleshoot
> > > > >>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>> problem
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> if
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comes
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user-list with an issue in the code.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 7:06 PM, Dmitry
> > > > >>>>>> Pavlov <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Igniters,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 to idea of checklist.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 to refactoring and documenting
> > > > >> code
> > > > >>>>>> related
> > > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ticket
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +/-20
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOC
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we start to do it as part of our
> > > > >>>>> regular
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> contribution,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better, it would became common
> > > > >> practice
> > > > >>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>> part
> > > > >>>>>>>>> of
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Apache
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> development culure.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we will hope we will have free
> > > > >> time
> > > > >>> to
> > > > >>>>>>> submit
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> separate
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patch
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someday
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have patience to complete
> > > > >>>>> patch-submission
> > > > >>>>>>>>> process,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> code
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remain
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undocumented and poor-readable.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sincerely,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пт, 20 апр. 2018 г. в 18:56,
> > > > >> Александр
> > > > >>>>>>>> Меньшиков <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sharplermc@gmail.com
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4) Metrics.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partially +1
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It makes sense to have some minimal
> > > > >>>>> code
> > > > >>>>>>>>> coverage
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code in
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMHO.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, we can limit the cyclomatic
> > > > >>>>>> complexity
> > > > >>>>>>>> of
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6) Refactoring
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -1
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I understand why people want to
> > > > >>>>> refactor
> > > > >>>>>> old
> > > > >>>>>>>>> code.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I think refactoring should be
> > > > >>>>> always a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> separate
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> task.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And it's better to remove all
> > > > >>>>> refactoring
> > > > >>>>>>> from
> > > > >>>>>>>>> PR,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> if
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> it's
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the issue.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018-04-20 16:54 GMT+03:00 Andrey
> > > > >>>>>> Kuznetsov
> > > > >>>>>>> <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stkuzma@gmail.com>:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What about adding the following
> > > > >>> item
> > > > >>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> checklist:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adds
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new functionality, then unit
> > > > >> tests
> > > > >>>>>> should
> > > > >>>>>>>> also
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provided, if
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technically possible?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for refactorings, in fact they
> > > > >>> are
> > > > >>>>>>>> strongly
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discouraged
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> today
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unclear reason. Let's permit to
> > > > >>> make
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> refactorings
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checklist
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussed. (Of cource,
> > > > >> refactoring
> > > > >>>>>> should
> > > > >>>>>>>>> relate
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solved.)
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018-04-20 16:16 GMT+03:00
> > > > >> Vladimir
> > > > >>>>>>> Ozerov <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vozerov@gridgain.com
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Ed,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately some of these
> > > > >>> points
> > > > >>>>> are
> > > > >>>>>>> not
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> good
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> candidates
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checklist because of these:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - It must be clear and disallow
> > > > >>>>>>> *multiple
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interpretations*
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - It must be *lightweight*,
> > > > >>>>> otherwise
> > > > >>>>>>>> Ignite
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> development
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> become a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nightmare
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We cannot have "nice to have"
> > > > >>>>> points
> > > > >>>>>>> here.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Checklist
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question "is ticket eligible to
> > > > >>> be
> > > > >>>>>>>> merged?"
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Code style.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Documentation
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -1, it is impossible to define
> > > > >>>>> what is
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "well-documented". A
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> piece
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could be obvious for one
> > > > >>>>> contributor,
> > > > >>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> non-obvious
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case this is not a blocker for
> > > > >>>>> merge.
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Instead,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> during
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ask
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementer to add more docs,
> > > > >> but
> > > > >>>>> it
> > > > >>>>>>>> cannot
> > > > >>>>>>>>> be
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> forced.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) Logging
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -1, same problem - what is
> > > > >>> "enough
> > > > >>>>>>>>> logging?".
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Enough
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whom?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand whether it is enough
> > > > >>> or
> > > > >>>>>> not?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4) Metrics
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -1, no clear boundaries, and
> > > > >>>>> decision
> > > > >>>>>> on
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> whether
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> metrics
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> added
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not should be performed during
> > > > >>>>> design
> > > > >>>>>>>> phase.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> As
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perfectly
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valid to ask contributor to add
> > > > >>>>>> metrics
> > > > >>>>>>>> with
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> clear
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this is not part of the
> > > > >>> checklist.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5) TC status
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1, already mentioned
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6) Refactoring
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Strong -1. OOP is a slippery
> > > > >>> slope,
> > > > >>>>>>> there
> > > > >>>>>>>>> are
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> no
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> good
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and bad
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> receipts
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all cases, hence it cannot be
> > > > >>> used
> > > > >>>>> in
> > > > >>>>>> a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> checklist.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can borrow useful rules from
> > > > >>>>> p.2,
> > > > >>>>>> p.3
> > > > >>>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> p.4
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> if
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clear
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions on how to measure
> > > > >>> them.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vladimir.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:50
> > > > >> PM,
> > > > >>>>>> Eduard
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Shangareev <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eduard.shangareev@gmail.com>
> > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, I want to add some
> > > > >>>>> technical
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> requirement.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Code style.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The code needs to be
> > > > >> formatted
> > > > >>>>>>> according
> > > > >>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> coding
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guidelines
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> confluence/display/IGNITE/
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Coding+Guidelines
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code must not contain TODOs
> > > > >>>>> without
> > > > >>>>>> a
> > > > >>>>>>>>> ticket
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is highly recommended to
> > > > >>> make
> > > > >>>>>> major
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> formatting
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as a separate commit, to make
> > > > >>>>> review
> > > > >>>>>>>>> process
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> more
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> practical.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Documentation.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Added code should be
> > > > >>>>>> well-documented.
> > > > >>>>>>>> Any
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> methods
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> raise
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regarding their code flow,
> > > > >>>>>> invariants,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> synchronization,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc.,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> documented with comprehensive
> > > > >>>>>> javadoc.
> > > > >>>>>>>> Any
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> reviewer
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> request
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular added method be
> > > > >>>>>> documented.
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Also,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> practice
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> document old code in a 10-20
> > > > >>>>> lines
> > > > >>>>>>>> region
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> around
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changed
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) Logging.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Make sure that there are
> > > > >> enough
> > > > >>>>>>> logging
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> added
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> category
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible diagnostic in field.
> > > > >>>>> Check
> > > > >>>>>>> that
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> logging
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> messages
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properly
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spelled.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4) Metrics.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are there any metrics that
> > > > >> need
> > > > >>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>> be
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> exposed
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5) TC status.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Recheck that there are no new
> > > > >>>>>> failing
> > > > >>>>>>>>> tests
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6) Refactoring.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The code should be better
> > > > >> than
> > > > >>>>>> before:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - extract method from big
> > > > >>> one;
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - do anything else to make
> > > > >>>>> code
> > > > >>>>>>>> clearer
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (don't
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forget
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   OOP-practise, replace
> > > > >>> if-else
> > > > >>>>>> hell
> > > > >>>>>>>> with
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inheritance
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - split refactoring
> > > > >>> (renaming,
> > > > >>>>>> code
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> format)
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> from
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   separate commit
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
>

Re: Ticket review checklist

[Dmitry Pavlov <dp...@gmail.com>]

Hi Vladimir, could you provide definition what is new failure? how do you
know it is new or not?

And please forget for a moment you're Ignite expert & veteran, imagine you
are newcomer.

I can't find any criteria that can be used by newbie to come to the
conclusion that test is new. Patch is accepted by reviewer, so it should be
up to him to correctly register failures in tickets with
MakeTeamCityGreenAgain label and mute unimportant tests.

пн, 4 июн. 2018 г. в 11:32, Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>:

> Dmitry,
>
> I still do not see how new patches could be accepted with this requirement
> in place. Consider the following case: I created a patch and run it on TC,
> observed N failures, verified through TC history that none if them are new.
> Am I eligible to push the commit?
>
> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 3:11 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <dp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Petr, good point. It is more intuitive, we should mark test we can ignore
> > by mute.
> >
> > So Vladimir, you or other Ignite veteran can mute test, if can say it is
> > not important.
> >
> > чт, 24 мая 2018 г. в 15:07, Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > Why cannot we mute (and file corresponding tickets) all test failures
> > > (including flaky) to some date and start initiative Green TC?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > On 24 May 2018, at 15:04, Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Dmitry,
> > > >
> > > > We cannot add this requirements, because we do have failures on TC.
> > This
> > > > requirement implies that all development would stop until TC is
> green.
> > > > We never had old requirement work, neither we need to enforce it now.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 2:59 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <
> dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> 3.c
> > > >>
> > > >>   1. All test suites *MUST* be run on TeamCity [3] before merge to
> > > master,
> > > >>   there *MUST NOT* be any test failures
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> 'New' word should be removed because we cant separate `new` and `non
> > > new`
> > > >> failures.
> > > >>
> > > >> Let's imagine example, we have 50 green runs in master. And PR
> Run-All
> > > >> contains this test failed. Is it new or not new? Actually we don't
> > know.
> > > >>
> > > >> Existing requirement is about all TC must be green, so let's keep it
> > as
> > > is.
> > > >>
> > > >> ср, 23 мая 2018 г. в 17:02, Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Igniters,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I created review checklist on WIKI [1] and also fixed related pages
> > > (e.g.
> > > >>> "How To Contribute"). Please let me know if you have any comments
> > > before
> > > >> I
> > > >>> go with public announce.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Vladimir.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> [1]
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Review+Checklist
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:10 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > vozerov@gridgain.com
> > > >
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> Ilya,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> We define that exception messages *SHOULD* have clear explanation
> on
> > > >> what
> > > >>>> is wrong. *SHOULD* mean that the rule should be followed unless
> > there
> > > >> is
> > > >>> a
> > > >>>> reason not to follow. In your case you refer to some unexpected
> > > >> behavior.
> > > >>>> I.e. an exceptional situation developer is not aware of. In this
> > case
> > > >> for
> > > >>>> sure we cannot force contributor to explain what is wrong,
> because,
> > > >> well,
> > > >>>> we don't know. This is why we relaxed the rule from *MUST* to
> > > *SHOULD*.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Ilya Kasnacheev <
> > > >>>> ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> I don't think I quite understand how exception explanations
> should
> > > >> work.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Imagine we have the following exception:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> // At least RuntimeException can be thrown by the code above when
> > > >>>>> GridCacheContext is cleaned and there is
> > > >>>>> // an attempt to use cleaned resources.
> > > >>>>> U.error(log, "Unexpected exception during cache update", e);
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> I mean, we genuinely don't know what happened here.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Under new rules, what kind of "workaround" would that exception
> > > >> suggest?
> > > >>>>> "Try turning it off and then back on"?
> > > >>>>> What explanation how to resolve this exception can we offer?
> > "Please
> > > >>> write
> > > >>>>> to dev@apache.ignite.org or to Apache JIRA, and then wait for a
> > > >> release
> > > >>>>> with fix?"
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> I'm really confused how we can implement 1.6 and 1.7 when dealing
> > > with
> > > >>>>> messy real-world code.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Regards,
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> --
> > > >>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> 2018-05-10 11:39 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <vozerov@gridgain.com
> >:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Andrey, Anton, Alex
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Agree, *SHOULD* is more appropriate here.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Please see latest version below. Does anyone want to add or
> change
> > > >>>>>> something? Let's wait for several days for more feedback and
> then
> > > >>>>> publish
> > > >>>>>> and announce this list. Note that it would not be carved in
> stone
> > > >> and
> > > >>> we
> > > >>>>>> will be able to change it at any time if needed.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> 1) API
> > > >>>>>> 1.1) API compatibility *MUST* be maintained between minor
> > releases.
> > > >> Do
> > > >>>>> not
> > > >>>>>> remove existing methods or change their signatures, deprecate
> them
> > > >>>>> instead
> > > >>>>>> 1.2) Default behaviour "SHOULD NOT* be changed between minor
> > > >> releases,
> > > >>>>>> unless absolutely needed. If change is made, it *MUST* be
> > described
> > > >> in
> > > >>>>>> "Migration Guide"
> > > >>>>>> 1.3) New operation *MUST* be well-documented in code (javadoc,
> > > >>>>> dotnetdoc):
> > > >>>>>> documentation must contain method's purpose, description of
> > > >> parameters
> > > >>>>> and
> > > >>>>>> how their values affect the outcome, description of return value
> > and
> > > >>>>> it's
> > > >>>>>> default, behavior in negative cases, interaction with other
> > > >> operations
> > > >>>>> and
> > > >>>>>> components
> > > >>>>>> 1.4) API parity between Java and .NET platforms *SHOULD* be
> > > >> maintained
> > > >>>>> when
> > > >>>>>> operation makes sense on both platforms. If method cannot be
> > > >>>>> implemented in
> > > >>>>>> a platform immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be created and
> > linked
> > > >>> to
> > > >>>>>> current ticket
> > > >>>>>> 1.5) API parity between thin clients (Java, .NET) *SHOULD* be
> > > >>> maintained
> > > >>>>>> when operation makes sense on several clients. If method cannot
> be
> > > >>>>>> implemented in a client immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be
> > > >> created
> > > >>>>> and
> > > >>>>>> linked to current ticket
> > > >>>>>> 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user **SHOULD** have explanation
> > how
> > > >>> to
> > > >>>>>> resolve, workaround or debug an error
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> 2) Compatibility
> > > >>>>>> 2.1) Persistence backward compatibility *MUST* be maintained
> > between
> > > >>>>> minor
> > > >>>>>> releases. It should be possible to start newer version on data
> > files
> > > >>>>>> created by the previous version
> > > >>>>>> 2.2) Thin client forward and backward compatibility *SHOULD* be
> > > >>>>> maintained
> > > >>>>>> between two consecutive minor releases. If compatibility cannot
> be
> > > >>>>>> maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
> > > >>>>>> 2.3) JDBC and ODBC forward and backward compatibility *SHOULD*
> be
> > > >>>>>> maintained between two consecutive minor releases. If
> > compatibility
> > > >>>>> cannot
> > > >>>>>> be maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> 3) Tests
> > > >>>>>> 3.1) New functionality *MUST* be covered with unit tests for
> both
> > > >>>>> positive
> > > >>>>>> and negative use cases
> > > >>>>>> 3.2) All test suites *MUST* be run before merge to master..There
> > > >>> *MUST*
> > > >>>>> be
> > > >>>>>> no new test failures
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> 4) Code style *MUST* be followed as per Ignite's Coding
> Guidelines
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Vladimir.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 1:05 PM, Andrey Kuznetsov <
> > stkuzma@gmail.com
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Anton,
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> I agree, *MUST* for exception reasons and *SHOULD* for ways of
> > > >>>>> resolution
> > > >>>>>>> sound clearer.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> 2018-05-08 12:56 GMT+03:00 Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Andrey,
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> How about
> > > >>>>>>>> 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user *MUST* have explanation
> of
> > > >>>>>>> workaround
> > > >>>>>>>> and contain original error.
> > > >>>>>>>> All exceptions thrown to a user *SHOULD* have explanation how
> to
> > > >>>>>> resolve
> > > >>>>>>> if
> > > >>>>>>>> possible.
> > > >>>>>>>> ?
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> вт, 8 мая 2018 г. в 12:26, Andrey Kuznetsov <
> stkuzma@gmail.com
> > > >>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Vladimir, checklist looks pleasant enough for me.
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> I'd like to suggest one minor change. In 1.6 *MUST* seems to
> > > >> be
> > > >>>>> too
> > > >>>>>>>> strict,
> > > >>>>>>>>> *SHOULD* would be enough. It can be frustrating for API user
> > > >> if
> > > >>> I
> > > >>>>>>> explain
> > > >>>>>>>>> how to fix NPEs in a trivial way, for example.
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> 2018-05-08 11:34 GMT+03:00 Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Alex,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> It is not sounds like that, obviously.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Tests should cover all negative and positive cases.
> > > >>>>>>>>>> You should add enough tests to cover all cases.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Sometimes one test can cover more than one case, so two
> > > >> tests
> > > >>>>> *CAN*
> > > >>>>>>>>>> partially check same things.
> > > >>>>>>>>>> In case some cases already covered you should not create
> > > >>>>>> duplicates.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> вт, 8 мая 2018 г. в 10:19, Александр Меньшиков <
> > > >>>>>> sharplermc@gmail.com
> > > >>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Vladimir, the 3.1 is a bit unclear for me. Which code
> > > >>>>> coverage is
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> acceptable? Now it sounds like two tests are enough (one
> > > >> for
> > > >>>>>>> positive
> > > >>>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> one for negative cases).
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> 2018-05-07 23:09 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > > >>>>>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org
> > > >>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Is this list on the Wiki?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 7:26 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > >>>>>>>>> vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the checklist I have at the moment. Please let
> > > >>> me
> > > >>>>>> know
> > > >>>>>>> if
> > > >>>>>>>>> you
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> any comments on existing items, or want to add or
> > > >> remove
> > > >>>>>>>> anything.
> > > >>>>>>>>> It
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> looks
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> like we may have not only strict rules, but *nice to
> > > >>> have*
> > > >>>>>>> points
> > > >>>>>>>>>> here
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> as
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> well with help of *MUST*, *SHOULD* and *MAY* words as
> > > >>> per
> > > >>>>>>> RFC2119
> > > >>>>>>>>>> [1].
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> So
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> please feel free to suggest optional items as well.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) API
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.1) API compatibility *MUST* be maintained between
> > > >>> minor
> > > >>>>>>>> releases.
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Do
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> remove existing methods or change their signatures,
> > > >>>>> deprecate
> > > >>>>>>>> them
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> instead
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.2) Default behaviour "SHOULD NOT* be changed between
> > > >>>>> minor
> > > >>>>>>>>>> releases,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> unless absolutely needed. If change is made, it *MUST*
> > > >>> be
> > > >>>>>>>> described
> > > >>>>>>>>>> in
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Migration Guide"
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.3) New operation *MUST* be well-documented in code
> > > >>>>>> (javadoc,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> dotnetdoc):
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> documentation must contain method's purpose,
> > > >> description
> > > >>>>> of
> > > >>>>>>>>>> parameters
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> how their values affect the outcome, description of
> > > >>> return
> > > >>>>>>> value
> > > >>>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> it's
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> default, behavior in negative cases, interaction with
> > > >>>>> other
> > > >>>>>>>>>> operations
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> components
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.4) API parity between Java and .NET platforms
> > > >> *SHOULD*
> > > >>>>> be
> > > >>>>>>>>>> maintained
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> when
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> operation makes sense on both platforms. If method
> > > >>> cannot
> > > >>>>> be
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> implemented
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a platform immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be
> > > >>> created
> > > >>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>> linked
> > > >>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> current ticket
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.5) API parity between thin clients (Java, .NET)
> > > >>>>> *SHOULD* be
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> maintained
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> when operation makes sense on several clients. If
> > > >> method
> > > >>>>>> cannot
> > > >>>>>>>> be
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> implemented in a client immediately, new JIRA ticket
> > > >>>>> *MUST*
> > > >>>>>> be
> > > >>>>>>>>>> created
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> linked to current ticket
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user *MUST* have
> > > >>>>> explanation
> > > >>>>>>> how
> > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> resolve, workaround or debug an error
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Compatibility
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.1) Persistence backward compatibility *MUST* be
> > > >>>>> maintained
> > > >>>>>>>>> between
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> minor
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> releases. It should be possible to start newer version
> > > >>> on
> > > >>>>>> data
> > > >>>>>>>>> files
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> created by the previous version
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.2) Thin client forward and backward compatibility
> > > >>>>> *SHOULD*
> > > >>>>>> be
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> maintained
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> between two consecutive minor releases. If
> > > >> compatibility
> > > >>>>>> cannot
> > > >>>>>>>> be
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.3) JDBC and ODBC forward and backward compatibility
> > > >>>>>> *SHOULD*
> > > >>>>>>> be
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> maintained between two consecutive minor releases. If
> > > >>>>>>>> compatibility
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> cannot
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> be maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration
> > > >>> Guide"
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) Tests
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.1) New functionality *MUST* be covered with unit
> > > >> tests
> > > >>>>> for
> > > >>>>>>> both
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> positive
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and negative use cases
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.2) All test suites *MUST* be run before merge to
> > > >>>>>>> master..There
> > > >>>>>>>>>> *MUST*
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> no new test failures
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 4) Code style *MUST* be followed as per Ignite's
> > > >> Coding
> > > >>>>>>>> Guidelines
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Vladimir.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > >>>>>>>>>> vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Dmitry,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I'll do that in the nearest days.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters, the idea was related to small
> > > >> refactorings
> > > >>>>>>>> co-located
> > > >>>>>>>>>> with
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> main
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Main change itself indicates that existing code did
> > > >>> not
> > > >>>>>> meet
> > > >>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> criteria
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of practice. Approving of standalone refactorings
> > > >>>>> instead
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> contradicts
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> principle don't touch if it works. So I still like
> > > >>>>> idea of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> co-located
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes improving code, javadocs, style, etc.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But let's not argue about this point now, let's
> > > >>>>> summarize
> > > >>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> undisputed
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> points and add it to the wiki. Vladimir, would you
> > > >>>>> please
> > > >>>>>> do
> > > >>>>>>>> it?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 25 апр. 2018 г. в 16:42, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > >>>>>>>>> nizhikov@apache.org
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with Vova.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't fix if it works!
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you 100% sure then it a useful addition to the
> > > >>>>>> product
> > > >>>>>>> -
> > > >>>>>>>>> just
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> make
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate ticket.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> В Ср, 25/04/2018 в 11:44 +0300, Vladimir Ozerov
> > > >>>>> пишет:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guys,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem with in-place refactorings is that
> > > >>> you
> > > >>>>>>>> increase
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> affected
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scope.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not uncommon to break compatibility or
> > > >>> public
> > > >>>>>>>>> contracts
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> minor things. E.g. recently we decided drop
> > > >>>>> org.jsr166
> > > >>>>>>>>> package
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> favor
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Java 8 classes. Innocent change. Result -
> > > >> broken
> > > >>>>>>> storage.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Another
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is conflicts. It is not uncommon to have
> > > >>> long-lived
> > > >>>>>>>> branches
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> which
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to merge with master over and over again. And a
> > > >>>>> lot of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> refactorings
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conflicts. It is much easier to resolve them if
> > > >>> you
> > > >>>>>> know
> > > >>>>>>>>> that
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> logic
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affected as opposed to cases when you need to
> > > >>>>> resolve
> > > >>>>>>> both
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> renames
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> method extractions along with business-logic
> > > >>>>> changes.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to repeat - if you have a time for
> > > >>>>>> refactoring
> > > >>>>>>>> then
> > > >>>>>>>>>> you
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitely
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a time to extract these changes to
> > > >> separate
> > > >>> PR
> > > >>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>> submit a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ticket. I am quite understand what "low
> > > >> priority"
> > > >>>>> do
> > > >>>>>> you
> > > >>>>>>>>> mean
> > > >>>>>>>>>> if
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> you
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> refactorings on your own.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 10:52 PM, Andrey
> > > >>> Kuznetsov
> > > >>>>> <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> stkuzma@gmail.com
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once again, I beg for "small refactoring
> > > >>>>> permission"
> > > >>>>>>> in
> > > >>>>>>>> a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> checklist.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> today, separate tickets for small
> > > >> refactorings
> > > >>>>> has
> > > >>>>>>>> lowest
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> priority,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they neither fix any flaw nor add new
> > > >>>>> functionality.
> > > >>>>>>>> Also,
> > > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attempts to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make issue-related code safer / cleaner /
> > > >> more
> > > >>>>>>> readable
> > > >>>>>>>> in
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> "real"
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pull
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requests are typically rejected, since they
> > > >>>>>> contradict
> > > >>>>>>>> our
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> current
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guidelines.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I understand this will require a bit more
> > > >>> effort
> > > >>>>>> from
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committer/maintainer,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but otherwise we will get constantly
> > > >> degrading
> > > >>>>> code
> > > >>>>>>>>> quality.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018-04-24 18:52 GMT+03:00 Eduard Shangareev
> > > >> <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eduard.shangareev@gmail.com
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vladimir,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am not talking about
> > > >> massive/sophisticated
> > > >>>>>>>>> refactoring.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> But
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that ask to extract some methods should be
> > > >> OK
> > > >>>>> to
> > > >>>>>> do
> > > >>>>>>>>>> without
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> an
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extra
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ticket.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A checklist shouldn't be necessarily a set
> > > >> of
> > > >>>>>>> certain
> > > >>>>>>>>>> rules
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> but
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could include suggestion and reminders.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 6:39 PM, Vladimir
> > > >>>>> Ozerov <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ed,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Refactoring is a separate task. If you
> > > >>> would
> > > >>>>>> like
> > > >>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> rework
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exchange
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - please do this in a ticket "Refactor
> > > >>>>> exchange
> > > >>>>>>>> task",
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> nobody
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this. This is just a matter of creating
> > > >>>>> separate
> > > >>>>>>>>> ticket
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one have a time for refactoring, it
> > > >> should
> > > >>>>> not
> > > >>>>>> be
> > > >>>>>>> a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> problem
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> him to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spend several minutes on JIRA and GitHub.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As far as documentation - what you
> > > >> describe
> > > >>>>> is
> > > >>>>>>>> normal
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> review
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reviewer might want to ask contributor to
> > > >>> fix
> > > >>>>>>>>> something.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Checklist
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different thing - this is a set of rules
> > > >>>>> which
> > > >>>>>>> must
> > > >>>>>>>> be
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> followed
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do not understand how you can define
> > > >>>>>>> documentation
> > > >>>>>>>>> in
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checklist.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Same problem with logging - what is
> > > >>> "enough"?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Eduard
> > > >>>>>>> Shangareev <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't understand why you are so
> > > >> against
> > > >>>>>>>>> refactoring.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Code already smells like hell. Methods
> > > >>> 200+
> > > >>>>>> line
> > > >>>>>>>> is
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> normal.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Exchange
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is asking to be separated on several
> > > >> one.
> > > >>>>>>>>> Transaction
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> code
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> few people.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we separate refactoring from
> > > >>>>> development it
> > > >>>>>>>> would
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> mean
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no one
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do it.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Documentation.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everything which was asked by reviewers
> > > >>> to
> > > >>>>>>> clarify
> > > >>>>>>>>>> idea
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should be
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reflected
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the code.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) Logging.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Logging should be enough to
> > > >> troubleshoot
> > > >>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>> problem
> > > >>>>>>>>>> if
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comes
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user-list with an issue in the code.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 7:06 PM, Dmitry
> > > >>>>>> Pavlov <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Igniters,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 to idea of checklist.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 to refactoring and documenting
> > > >> code
> > > >>>>>> related
> > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> ticket
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +/-20
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOC
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we start to do it as part of our
> > > >>>>> regular
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> contribution,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better, it would became common
> > > >> practice
> > > >>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>> part
> > > >>>>>>>>> of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Apache
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> development culure.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we will hope we will have free
> > > >> time
> > > >>> to
> > > >>>>>>> submit
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> separate
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patch
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someday
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have patience to complete
> > > >>>>> patch-submission
> > > >>>>>>>>> process,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> code
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remain
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undocumented and poor-readable.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sincerely,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пт, 20 апр. 2018 г. в 18:56,
> > > >> Александр
> > > >>>>>>>> Меньшиков <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sharplermc@gmail.com
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4) Metrics.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partially +1
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It makes sense to have some minimal
> > > >>>>> code
> > > >>>>>>>>> coverage
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code in
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMHO.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, we can limit the cyclomatic
> > > >>>>>> complexity
> > > >>>>>>>> of
> > > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6) Refactoring
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -1
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I understand why people want to
> > > >>>>> refactor
> > > >>>>>> old
> > > >>>>>>>>> code.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I think refactoring should be
> > > >>>>> always a
> > > >>>>>>>>>> separate
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> task.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And it's better to remove all
> > > >>>>> refactoring
> > > >>>>>>> from
> > > >>>>>>>>> PR,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> if
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> it's
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the issue.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018-04-20 16:54 GMT+03:00 Andrey
> > > >>>>>> Kuznetsov
> > > >>>>>>> <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stkuzma@gmail.com>:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What about adding the following
> > > >>> item
> > > >>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> checklist:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adds
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new functionality, then unit
> > > >> tests
> > > >>>>>> should
> > > >>>>>>>> also
> > > >>>>>>>>>> be
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provided, if
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technically possible?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for refactorings, in fact they
> > > >>> are
> > > >>>>>>>> strongly
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discouraged
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> today
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unclear reason. Let's permit to
> > > >>> make
> > > >>>>>>>>>> refactorings
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checklist
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussed. (Of cource,
> > > >> refactoring
> > > >>>>>> should
> > > >>>>>>>>> relate
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solved.)
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018-04-20 16:16 GMT+03:00
> > > >> Vladimir
> > > >>>>>>> Ozerov <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vozerov@gridgain.com
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Ed,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately some of these
> > > >>> points
> > > >>>>> are
> > > >>>>>>> not
> > > >>>>>>>>>> good
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> candidates
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checklist because of these:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - It must be clear and disallow
> > > >>>>>>> *multiple
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interpretations*
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - It must be *lightweight*,
> > > >>>>> otherwise
> > > >>>>>>>> Ignite
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> development
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> become a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nightmare
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We cannot have "nice to have"
> > > >>>>> points
> > > >>>>>>> here.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Checklist
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question "is ticket eligible to
> > > >>> be
> > > >>>>>>>> merged?"
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Code style.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Documentation
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -1, it is impossible to define
> > > >>>>> what is
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "well-documented". A
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> piece
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could be obvious for one
> > > >>>>> contributor,
> > > >>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> non-obvious
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case this is not a blocker for
> > > >>>>> merge.
> > > >>>>>>>>> Instead,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> during
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ask
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementer to add more docs,
> > > >> but
> > > >>>>> it
> > > >>>>>>>> cannot
> > > >>>>>>>>> be
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> forced.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) Logging
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -1, same problem - what is
> > > >>> "enough
> > > >>>>>>>>> logging?".
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Enough
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whom?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand whether it is enough
> > > >>> or
> > > >>>>>> not?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4) Metrics
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -1, no clear boundaries, and
> > > >>>>> decision
> > > >>>>>> on
> > > >>>>>>>>>> whether
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> metrics
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> added
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not should be performed during
> > > >>>>> design
> > > >>>>>>>> phase.
> > > >>>>>>>>>> As
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perfectly
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valid to ask contributor to add
> > > >>>>>> metrics
> > > >>>>>>>> with
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> clear
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this is not part of the
> > > >>> checklist.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5) TC status
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1, already mentioned
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6) Refactoring
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Strong -1. OOP is a slippery
> > > >>> slope,
> > > >>>>>>> there
> > > >>>>>>>>> are
> > > >>>>>>>>>> no
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> good
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and bad
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> receipts
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all cases, hence it cannot be
> > > >>> used
> > > >>>>> in
> > > >>>>>> a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> checklist.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can borrow useful rules from
> > > >>>>> p.2,
> > > >>>>>> p.3
> > > >>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>> p.4
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> if
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clear
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions on how to measure
> > > >>> them.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vladimir.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:50
> > > >> PM,
> > > >>>>>> Eduard
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Shangareev <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eduard.shangareev@gmail.com>
> > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, I want to add some
> > > >>>>> technical
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> requirement.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Code style.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The code needs to be
> > > >> formatted
> > > >>>>>>> according
> > > >>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> coding
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guidelines
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/
> > > >>>>>>>>>> confluence/display/IGNITE/
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Coding+Guidelines
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code must not contain TODOs
> > > >>>>> without
> > > >>>>>> a
> > > >>>>>>>>> ticket
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is highly recommended to
> > > >>> make
> > > >>>>>> major
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> formatting
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as a separate commit, to make
> > > >>>>> review
> > > >>>>>>>>> process
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> more
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> practical.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Documentation.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Added code should be
> > > >>>>>> well-documented.
> > > >>>>>>>> Any
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> methods
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> raise
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regarding their code flow,
> > > >>>>>> invariants,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> synchronization,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc.,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> documented with comprehensive
> > > >>>>>> javadoc.
> > > >>>>>>>> Any
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> reviewer
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> request
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular added method be
> > > >>>>>> documented.
> > > >>>>>>>>> Also,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> practice
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> document old code in a 10-20
> > > >>>>> lines
> > > >>>>>>>> region
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> around
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changed
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) Logging.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Make sure that there are
> > > >> enough
> > > >>>>>>> logging
> > > >>>>>>>>>> added
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> category
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible diagnostic in field.
> > > >>>>> Check
> > > >>>>>>> that
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> logging
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> messages
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properly
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spelled.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4) Metrics.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are there any metrics that
> > > >> need
> > > >>>>> to
> > > >>>>>> be
> > > >>>>>>>>>> exposed
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5) TC status.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Recheck that there are no new
> > > >>>>>> failing
> > > >>>>>>>>> tests
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6) Refactoring.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The code should be better
> > > >> than
> > > >>>>>> before:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - extract method from big
> > > >>> one;
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - do anything else to make
> > > >>>>> code
> > > >>>>>>>> clearer
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (don't
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forget
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   OOP-practise, replace
> > > >>> if-else
> > > >>>>>> hell
> > > >>>>>>>> with
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inheritance
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - split refactoring
> > > >>> (renaming,
> > > >>>>>> code
> > > >>>>>>>>>> format)
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> from
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   separate commit
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>

Re: Ticket review checklist

[Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>]

Dmitry,

I still do not see how new patches could be accepted with this requirement
in place. Consider the following case: I created a patch and run it on TC,
observed N failures, verified through TC history that none if them are new.
Am I eligible to push the commit?

On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 3:11 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <dp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Petr, good point. It is more intuitive, we should mark test we can ignore
> by mute.
>
> So Vladimir, you or other Ignite veteran can mute test, if can say it is
> not important.
>
> чт, 24 мая 2018 г. в 15:07, Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com>:
>
> > Why cannot we mute (and file corresponding tickets) all test failures
> > (including flaky) to some date and start initiative Green TC?
> >
> >
> >
> > > On 24 May 2018, at 15:04, Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Dmitry,
> > >
> > > We cannot add this requirements, because we do have failures on TC.
> This
> > > requirement implies that all development would stop until TC is green.
> > > We never had old requirement work, neither we need to enforce it now.
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 2:59 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <dp...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> 3.c
> > >>
> > >>   1. All test suites *MUST* be run on TeamCity [3] before merge to
> > master,
> > >>   there *MUST NOT* be any test failures
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> 'New' word should be removed because we cant separate `new` and `non
> > new`
> > >> failures.
> > >>
> > >> Let's imagine example, we have 50 green runs in master. And PR Run-All
> > >> contains this test failed. Is it new or not new? Actually we don't
> know.
> > >>
> > >> Existing requirement is about all TC must be green, so let's keep it
> as
> > is.
> > >>
> > >> ср, 23 мая 2018 г. в 17:02, Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>:
> > >>
> > >>> Igniters,
> > >>>
> > >>> I created review checklist on WIKI [1] and also fixed related pages
> > (e.g.
> > >>> "How To Contribute"). Please let me know if you have any comments
> > before
> > >> I
> > >>> go with public announce.
> > >>>
> > >>> Vladimir.
> > >>>
> > >>> [1]
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Review+Checklist
> > >>>
> > >>> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:10 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> vozerov@gridgain.com
> > >
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Ilya,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> We define that exception messages *SHOULD* have clear explanation on
> > >> what
> > >>>> is wrong. *SHOULD* mean that the rule should be followed unless
> there
> > >> is
> > >>> a
> > >>>> reason not to follow. In your case you refer to some unexpected
> > >> behavior.
> > >>>> I.e. an exceptional situation developer is not aware of. In this
> case
> > >> for
> > >>>> sure we cannot force contributor to explain what is wrong, because,
> > >> well,
> > >>>> we don't know. This is why we relaxed the rule from *MUST* to
> > *SHOULD*.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Ilya Kasnacheev <
> > >>>> ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> I don't think I quite understand how exception explanations should
> > >> work.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Imagine we have the following exception:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> // At least RuntimeException can be thrown by the code above when
> > >>>>> GridCacheContext is cleaned and there is
> > >>>>> // an attempt to use cleaned resources.
> > >>>>> U.error(log, "Unexpected exception during cache update", e);
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I mean, we genuinely don't know what happened here.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Under new rules, what kind of "workaround" would that exception
> > >> suggest?
> > >>>>> "Try turning it off and then back on"?
> > >>>>> What explanation how to resolve this exception can we offer?
> "Please
> > >>> write
> > >>>>> to dev@apache.ignite.org or to Apache JIRA, and then wait for a
> > >> release
> > >>>>> with fix?"
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I'm really confused how we can implement 1.6 and 1.7 when dealing
> > with
> > >>>>> messy real-world code.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Regards,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> --
> > >>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> 2018-05-10 11:39 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> Andrey, Anton, Alex
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Agree, *SHOULD* is more appropriate here.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Please see latest version below. Does anyone want to add or change
> > >>>>>> something? Let's wait for several days for more feedback and then
> > >>>>> publish
> > >>>>>> and announce this list. Note that it would not be carved in stone
> > >> and
> > >>> we
> > >>>>>> will be able to change it at any time if needed.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> 1) API
> > >>>>>> 1.1) API compatibility *MUST* be maintained between minor
> releases.
> > >> Do
> > >>>>> not
> > >>>>>> remove existing methods or change their signatures, deprecate them
> > >>>>> instead
> > >>>>>> 1.2) Default behaviour "SHOULD NOT* be changed between minor
> > >> releases,
> > >>>>>> unless absolutely needed. If change is made, it *MUST* be
> described
> > >> in
> > >>>>>> "Migration Guide"
> > >>>>>> 1.3) New operation *MUST* be well-documented in code (javadoc,
> > >>>>> dotnetdoc):
> > >>>>>> documentation must contain method's purpose, description of
> > >> parameters
> > >>>>> and
> > >>>>>> how their values affect the outcome, description of return value
> and
> > >>>>> it's
> > >>>>>> default, behavior in negative cases, interaction with other
> > >> operations
> > >>>>> and
> > >>>>>> components
> > >>>>>> 1.4) API parity between Java and .NET platforms *SHOULD* be
> > >> maintained
> > >>>>> when
> > >>>>>> operation makes sense on both platforms. If method cannot be
> > >>>>> implemented in
> > >>>>>> a platform immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be created and
> linked
> > >>> to
> > >>>>>> current ticket
> > >>>>>> 1.5) API parity between thin clients (Java, .NET) *SHOULD* be
> > >>> maintained
> > >>>>>> when operation makes sense on several clients. If method cannot be
> > >>>>>> implemented in a client immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be
> > >> created
> > >>>>> and
> > >>>>>> linked to current ticket
> > >>>>>> 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user **SHOULD** have explanation
> how
> > >>> to
> > >>>>>> resolve, workaround or debug an error
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> 2) Compatibility
> > >>>>>> 2.1) Persistence backward compatibility *MUST* be maintained
> between
> > >>>>> minor
> > >>>>>> releases. It should be possible to start newer version on data
> files
> > >>>>>> created by the previous version
> > >>>>>> 2.2) Thin client forward and backward compatibility *SHOULD* be
> > >>>>> maintained
> > >>>>>> between two consecutive minor releases. If compatibility cannot be
> > >>>>>> maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
> > >>>>>> 2.3) JDBC and ODBC forward and backward compatibility *SHOULD* be
> > >>>>>> maintained between two consecutive minor releases. If
> compatibility
> > >>>>> cannot
> > >>>>>> be maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> 3) Tests
> > >>>>>> 3.1) New functionality *MUST* be covered with unit tests for both
> > >>>>> positive
> > >>>>>> and negative use cases
> > >>>>>> 3.2) All test suites *MUST* be run before merge to master..There
> > >>> *MUST*
> > >>>>> be
> > >>>>>> no new test failures
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> 4) Code style *MUST* be followed as per Ignite's Coding Guidelines
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Vladimir.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 1:05 PM, Andrey Kuznetsov <
> stkuzma@gmail.com
> > >>>
> > >>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Anton,
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> I agree, *MUST* for exception reasons and *SHOULD* for ways of
> > >>>>> resolution
> > >>>>>>> sound clearer.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> 2018-05-08 12:56 GMT+03:00 Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Andrey,
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> How about
> > >>>>>>>> 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user *MUST* have explanation of
> > >>>>>>> workaround
> > >>>>>>>> and contain original error.
> > >>>>>>>> All exceptions thrown to a user *SHOULD* have explanation how to
> > >>>>>> resolve
> > >>>>>>> if
> > >>>>>>>> possible.
> > >>>>>>>> ?
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> вт, 8 мая 2018 г. в 12:26, Andrey Kuznetsov <stkuzma@gmail.com
> > >>> :
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Vladimir, checklist looks pleasant enough for me.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> I'd like to suggest one minor change. In 1.6 *MUST* seems to
> > >> be
> > >>>>> too
> > >>>>>>>> strict,
> > >>>>>>>>> *SHOULD* would be enough. It can be frustrating for API user
> > >> if
> > >>> I
> > >>>>>>> explain
> > >>>>>>>>> how to fix NPEs in a trivial way, for example.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> 2018-05-08 11:34 GMT+03:00 Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Alex,
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> It is not sounds like that, obviously.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Tests should cover all negative and positive cases.
> > >>>>>>>>>> You should add enough tests to cover all cases.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Sometimes one test can cover more than one case, so two
> > >> tests
> > >>>>> *CAN*
> > >>>>>>>>>> partially check same things.
> > >>>>>>>>>> In case some cases already covered you should not create
> > >>>>>> duplicates.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> вт, 8 мая 2018 г. в 10:19, Александр Меньшиков <
> > >>>>>> sharplermc@gmail.com
> > >>>>>>>> :
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Vladimir, the 3.1 is a bit unclear for me. Which code
> > >>>>> coverage is
> > >>>>>>>>>>> acceptable? Now it sounds like two tests are enough (one
> > >> for
> > >>>>>>> positive
> > >>>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>> one for negative cases).
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> 2018-05-07 23:09 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > >>>>>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org
> > >>>>>>>>> :
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Is this list on the Wiki?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 7:26 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > >>>>>>>>> vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the checklist I have at the moment. Please let
> > >>> me
> > >>>>>> know
> > >>>>>>> if
> > >>>>>>>>> you
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> any comments on existing items, or want to add or
> > >> remove
> > >>>>>>>> anything.
> > >>>>>>>>> It
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> looks
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> like we may have not only strict rules, but *nice to
> > >>> have*
> > >>>>>>> points
> > >>>>>>>>>> here
> > >>>>>>>>>>> as
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> well with help of *MUST*, *SHOULD* and *MAY* words as
> > >>> per
> > >>>>>>> RFC2119
> > >>>>>>>>>> [1].
> > >>>>>>>>>>> So
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> please feel free to suggest optional items as well.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) API
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.1) API compatibility *MUST* be maintained between
> > >>> minor
> > >>>>>>>> releases.
> > >>>>>>>>>> Do
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> remove existing methods or change their signatures,
> > >>>>> deprecate
> > >>>>>>>> them
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> instead
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.2) Default behaviour "SHOULD NOT* be changed between
> > >>>>> minor
> > >>>>>>>>>> releases,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> unless absolutely needed. If change is made, it *MUST*
> > >>> be
> > >>>>>>>> described
> > >>>>>>>>>> in
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Migration Guide"
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.3) New operation *MUST* be well-documented in code
> > >>>>>> (javadoc,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> dotnetdoc):
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> documentation must contain method's purpose,
> > >> description
> > >>>>> of
> > >>>>>>>>>> parameters
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> how their values affect the outcome, description of
> > >>> return
> > >>>>>>> value
> > >>>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>> it's
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> default, behavior in negative cases, interaction with
> > >>>>> other
> > >>>>>>>>>> operations
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> components
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.4) API parity between Java and .NET platforms
> > >> *SHOULD*
> > >>>>> be
> > >>>>>>>>>> maintained
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> when
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> operation makes sense on both platforms. If method
> > >>> cannot
> > >>>>> be
> > >>>>>>>>>>> implemented
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a platform immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be
> > >>> created
> > >>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>> linked
> > >>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> current ticket
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.5) API parity between thin clients (Java, .NET)
> > >>>>> *SHOULD* be
> > >>>>>>>>>>> maintained
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> when operation makes sense on several clients. If
> > >> method
> > >>>>>> cannot
> > >>>>>>>> be
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> implemented in a client immediately, new JIRA ticket
> > >>>>> *MUST*
> > >>>>>> be
> > >>>>>>>>>> created
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> linked to current ticket
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user *MUST* have
> > >>>>> explanation
> > >>>>>>> how
> > >>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> resolve, workaround or debug an error
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Compatibility
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.1) Persistence backward compatibility *MUST* be
> > >>>>> maintained
> > >>>>>>>>> between
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> minor
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> releases. It should be possible to start newer version
> > >>> on
> > >>>>>> data
> > >>>>>>>>> files
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> created by the previous version
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.2) Thin client forward and backward compatibility
> > >>>>> *SHOULD*
> > >>>>>> be
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> maintained
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> between two consecutive minor releases. If
> > >> compatibility
> > >>>>>> cannot
> > >>>>>>>> be
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.3) JDBC and ODBC forward and backward compatibility
> > >>>>>> *SHOULD*
> > >>>>>>> be
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> maintained between two consecutive minor releases. If
> > >>>>>>>> compatibility
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> cannot
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> be maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration
> > >>> Guide"
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) Tests
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.1) New functionality *MUST* be covered with unit
> > >> tests
> > >>>>> for
> > >>>>>>> both
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> positive
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and negative use cases
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.2) All test suites *MUST* be run before merge to
> > >>>>>>> master..There
> > >>>>>>>>>> *MUST*
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> no new test failures
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 4) Code style *MUST* be followed as per Ignite's
> > >> Coding
> > >>>>>>>> Guidelines
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Vladimir.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > >>>>>>>>>> vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Dmitry,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I'll do that in the nearest days.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <
> > >>>>>>>>>>> dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters, the idea was related to small
> > >> refactorings
> > >>>>>>>> co-located
> > >>>>>>>>>> with
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> main
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Main change itself indicates that existing code did
> > >>> not
> > >>>>>> meet
> > >>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> criteria
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of practice. Approving of standalone refactorings
> > >>>>> instead
> > >>>>>>>>>>> contradicts
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> principle don't touch if it works. So I still like
> > >>>>> idea of
> > >>>>>>>>>>> co-located
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes improving code, javadocs, style, etc.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But let's not argue about this point now, let's
> > >>>>> summarize
> > >>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> undisputed
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> points and add it to the wiki. Vladimir, would you
> > >>>>> please
> > >>>>>> do
> > >>>>>>>> it?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 25 апр. 2018 г. в 16:42, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > >>>>>>>>> nizhikov@apache.org
> > >>>>>>>>>>> :
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with Vova.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't fix if it works!
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you 100% sure then it a useful addition to the
> > >>>>>> product
> > >>>>>>> -
> > >>>>>>>>> just
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> make
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate ticket.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> В Ср, 25/04/2018 в 11:44 +0300, Vladimir Ozerov
> > >>>>> пишет:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guys,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem with in-place refactorings is that
> > >>> you
> > >>>>>>>> increase
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> affected
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scope.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not uncommon to break compatibility or
> > >>> public
> > >>>>>>>>> contracts
> > >>>>>>>>>>> with
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> minor things. E.g. recently we decided drop
> > >>>>> org.jsr166
> > >>>>>>>>> package
> > >>>>>>>>>>> in
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> favor
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Java 8 classes. Innocent change. Result -
> > >> broken
> > >>>>>>> storage.
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Another
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is conflicts. It is not uncommon to have
> > >>> long-lived
> > >>>>>>>> branches
> > >>>>>>>>>>> which
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to merge with master over and over again. And a
> > >>>>> lot of
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> refactorings
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conflicts. It is much easier to resolve them if
> > >>> you
> > >>>>>> know
> > >>>>>>>>> that
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> logic
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affected as opposed to cases when you need to
> > >>>>> resolve
> > >>>>>>> both
> > >>>>>>>>>>> renames
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> method extractions along with business-logic
> > >>>>> changes.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to repeat - if you have a time for
> > >>>>>> refactoring
> > >>>>>>>> then
> > >>>>>>>>>> you
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitely
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a time to extract these changes to
> > >> separate
> > >>> PR
> > >>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>> submit a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ticket. I am quite understand what "low
> > >> priority"
> > >>>>> do
> > >>>>>> you
> > >>>>>>>>> mean
> > >>>>>>>>>> if
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> you
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> refactorings on your own.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 10:52 PM, Andrey
> > >>> Kuznetsov
> > >>>>> <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> stkuzma@gmail.com
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once again, I beg for "small refactoring
> > >>>>> permission"
> > >>>>>>> in
> > >>>>>>>> a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> checklist.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As of
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> today, separate tickets for small
> > >> refactorings
> > >>>>> has
> > >>>>>>>> lowest
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> priority,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they neither fix any flaw nor add new
> > >>>>> functionality.
> > >>>>>>>> Also,
> > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attempts to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make issue-related code safer / cleaner /
> > >> more
> > >>>>>>> readable
> > >>>>>>>> in
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> "real"
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pull
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requests are typically rejected, since they
> > >>>>>> contradict
> > >>>>>>>> our
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> current
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guidelines.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I understand this will require a bit more
> > >>> effort
> > >>>>>> from
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committer/maintainer,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but otherwise we will get constantly
> > >> degrading
> > >>>>> code
> > >>>>>>>>> quality.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018-04-24 18:52 GMT+03:00 Eduard Shangareev
> > >> <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eduard.shangareev@gmail.com
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vladimir,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am not talking about
> > >> massive/sophisticated
> > >>>>>>>>> refactoring.
> > >>>>>>>>>>> But
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> I
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that ask to extract some methods should be
> > >> OK
> > >>>>> to
> > >>>>>> do
> > >>>>>>>>>> without
> > >>>>>>>>>>> an
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extra
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ticket.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A checklist shouldn't be necessarily a set
> > >> of
> > >>>>>>> certain
> > >>>>>>>>>> rules
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> but
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could include suggestion and reminders.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 6:39 PM, Vladimir
> > >>>>> Ozerov <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ed,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Refactoring is a separate task. If you
> > >>> would
> > >>>>>> like
> > >>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>> rework
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exchange
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - please do this in a ticket "Refactor
> > >>>>> exchange
> > >>>>>>>> task",
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> nobody
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this. This is just a matter of creating
> > >>>>> separate
> > >>>>>>>>> ticket
> > >>>>>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one have a time for refactoring, it
> > >> should
> > >>>>> not
> > >>>>>> be
> > >>>>>>> a
> > >>>>>>>>>>> problem
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> him to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spend several minutes on JIRA and GitHub.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As far as documentation - what you
> > >> describe
> > >>>>> is
> > >>>>>>>> normal
> > >>>>>>>>>>> review
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reviewer might want to ask contributor to
> > >>> fix
> > >>>>>>>>> something.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Checklist
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different thing - this is a set of rules
> > >>>>> which
> > >>>>>>> must
> > >>>>>>>> be
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> followed
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do not understand how you can define
> > >>>>>>> documentation
> > >>>>>>>>> in
> > >>>>>>>>>>> this
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checklist.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Same problem with logging - what is
> > >>> "enough"?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Eduard
> > >>>>>>> Shangareev <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't understand why you are so
> > >> against
> > >>>>>>>>> refactoring.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Code already smells like hell. Methods
> > >>> 200+
> > >>>>>> line
> > >>>>>>>> is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> normal.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Exchange
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is asking to be separated on several
> > >> one.
> > >>>>>>>>> Transaction
> > >>>>>>>>>>> code
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> few people.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we separate refactoring from
> > >>>>> development it
> > >>>>>>>> would
> > >>>>>>>>>>> mean
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no one
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do it.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Documentation.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everything which was asked by reviewers
> > >>> to
> > >>>>>>> clarify
> > >>>>>>>>>> idea
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should be
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reflected
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the code.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) Logging.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Logging should be enough to
> > >> troubleshoot
> > >>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>> problem
> > >>>>>>>>>> if
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comes
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user-list with an issue in the code.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 7:06 PM, Dmitry
> > >>>>>> Pavlov <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Igniters,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 to idea of checklist.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 to refactoring and documenting
> > >> code
> > >>>>>> related
> > >>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>> ticket
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +/-20
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOC
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we start to do it as part of our
> > >>>>> regular
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> contribution,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better, it would became common
> > >> practice
> > >>>>> and
> > >>>>>>> part
> > >>>>>>>>> of
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Apache
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> development culure.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we will hope we will have free
> > >> time
> > >>> to
> > >>>>>>> submit
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> separate
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patch
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someday
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have patience to complete
> > >>>>> patch-submission
> > >>>>>>>>> process,
> > >>>>>>>>>>> code
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remain
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undocumented and poor-readable.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sincerely,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy Pavlov
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пт, 20 апр. 2018 г. в 18:56,
> > >> Александр
> > >>>>>>>> Меньшиков <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sharplermc@gmail.com
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4) Metrics.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partially +1
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It makes sense to have some minimal
> > >>>>> code
> > >>>>>>>>> coverage
> > >>>>>>>>>>> for
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code in
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMHO.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, we can limit the cyclomatic
> > >>>>>> complexity
> > >>>>>>>> of
> > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6) Refactoring
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -1
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I understand why people want to
> > >>>>> refactor
> > >>>>>> old
> > >>>>>>>>> code.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I think refactoring should be
> > >>>>> always a
> > >>>>>>>>>> separate
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> task.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And it's better to remove all
> > >>>>> refactoring
> > >>>>>>> from
> > >>>>>>>>> PR,
> > >>>>>>>>>>> if
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> it's
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the issue.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018-04-20 16:54 GMT+03:00 Andrey
> > >>>>>> Kuznetsov
> > >>>>>>> <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stkuzma@gmail.com>:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What about adding the following
> > >>> item
> > >>>>> to
> > >>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> checklist:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adds
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new functionality, then unit
> > >> tests
> > >>>>>> should
> > >>>>>>>> also
> > >>>>>>>>>> be
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provided, if
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technically possible?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for refactorings, in fact they
> > >>> are
> > >>>>>>>> strongly
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discouraged
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> today
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unclear reason. Let's permit to
> > >>> make
> > >>>>>>>>>> refactorings
> > >>>>>>>>>>> in
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checklist
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussed. (Of cource,
> > >> refactoring
> > >>>>>> should
> > >>>>>>>>> relate
> > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solved.)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018-04-20 16:16 GMT+03:00
> > >> Vladimir
> > >>>>>>> Ozerov <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vozerov@gridgain.com
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Ed,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately some of these
> > >>> points
> > >>>>> are
> > >>>>>>> not
> > >>>>>>>>>> good
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> candidates
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checklist because of these:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - It must be clear and disallow
> > >>>>>>> *multiple
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interpretations*
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - It must be *lightweight*,
> > >>>>> otherwise
> > >>>>>>>> Ignite
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> development
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> become a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nightmare
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We cannot have "nice to have"
> > >>>>> points
> > >>>>>>> here.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Checklist
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question "is ticket eligible to
> > >>> be
> > >>>>>>>> merged?"
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Code style.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Documentation
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -1, it is impossible to define
> > >>>>> what is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "well-documented". A
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> piece
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could be obvious for one
> > >>>>> contributor,
> > >>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> non-obvious
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case this is not a blocker for
> > >>>>> merge.
> > >>>>>>>>> Instead,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> during
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ask
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementer to add more docs,
> > >> but
> > >>>>> it
> > >>>>>>>> cannot
> > >>>>>>>>> be
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> forced.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) Logging
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -1, same problem - what is
> > >>> "enough
> > >>>>>>>>> logging?".
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Enough
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whom?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand whether it is enough
> > >>> or
> > >>>>>> not?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4) Metrics
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -1, no clear boundaries, and
> > >>>>> decision
> > >>>>>> on
> > >>>>>>>>>> whether
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> metrics
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> added
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not should be performed during
> > >>>>> design
> > >>>>>>>> phase.
> > >>>>>>>>>> As
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perfectly
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valid to ask contributor to add
> > >>>>>> metrics
> > >>>>>>>> with
> > >>>>>>>>>>> clear
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this is not part of the
> > >>> checklist.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5) TC status
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1, already mentioned
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6) Refactoring
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Strong -1. OOP is a slippery
> > >>> slope,
> > >>>>>>> there
> > >>>>>>>>> are
> > >>>>>>>>>> no
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> good
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and bad
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> receipts
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all cases, hence it cannot be
> > >>> used
> > >>>>> in
> > >>>>>> a
> > >>>>>>>>>>> checklist.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can borrow useful rules from
> > >>>>> p.2,
> > >>>>>> p.3
> > >>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>> p.4
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> if
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clear
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions on how to measure
> > >>> them.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vladimir.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:50
> > >> PM,
> > >>>>>> Eduard
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Shangareev <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eduard.shangareev@gmail.com>
> > >>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, I want to add some
> > >>>>> technical
> > >>>>>>>>>>> requirement.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Code style.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The code needs to be
> > >> formatted
> > >>>>>>> according
> > >>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> coding
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guidelines
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/
> > >>>>>>>>>> confluence/display/IGNITE/
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Coding+Guidelines
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code must not contain TODOs
> > >>>>> without
> > >>>>>> a
> > >>>>>>>>> ticket
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is highly recommended to
> > >>> make
> > >>>>>> major
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> formatting
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as a separate commit, to make
> > >>>>> review
> > >>>>>>>>> process
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> more
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> practical.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Documentation.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Added code should be
> > >>>>>> well-documented.
> > >>>>>>>> Any
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> methods
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> raise
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regarding their code flow,
> > >>>>>> invariants,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> synchronization,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc.,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> documented with comprehensive
> > >>>>>> javadoc.
> > >>>>>>>> Any
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> reviewer
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> request
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular added method be
> > >>>>>> documented.
> > >>>>>>>>> Also,
> > >>>>>>>>>>> it
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> practice
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> document old code in a 10-20
> > >>>>> lines
> > >>>>>>>> region
> > >>>>>>>>>>> around
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changed
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) Logging.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Make sure that there are
> > >> enough
> > >>>>>>> logging
> > >>>>>>>>>> added
> > >>>>>>>>>>> in
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> category
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible diagnostic in field.
> > >>>>> Check
> > >>>>>>> that
> > >>>>>>>>>>> logging
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> messages
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properly
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spelled.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4) Metrics.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are there any metrics that
> > >> need
> > >>>>> to
> > >>>>>> be
> > >>>>>>>>>> exposed
> > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5) TC status.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Recheck that there are no new
> > >>>>>> failing
> > >>>>>>>>> tests
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6) Refactoring.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The code should be better
> > >> than
> > >>>>>> before:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - extract method from big
> > >>> one;
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - do anything else to make
> > >>>>> code
> > >>>>>>>> clearer
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> (don't
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forget
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   OOP-practise, replace
> > >>> if-else
> > >>>>>> hell
> > >>>>>>>> with
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inheritance
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - split refactoring
> > >>> (renaming,
> > >>>>>> code
> > >>>>>>>>>> format)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> from
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   separate commit
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:23
> > >>> PM,
> > >>>>>>> Eduard
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Shangareev <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eduard.shangareev@gmail.com>
> > >>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, guys.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe that we should
> > >>> update
> > >>>>>>>>>> maintainers
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> list
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adding
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requirement.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There should not be the
> > >>>>> situation
> > >>>>>>> when
> > >>>>>>>>>> there
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributor
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is responsible for a
> > >>> component.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We already have issues with
> > >>>>> review
> > >>>>>>>> speed
> > >>>>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> response
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at
> > >> 2:17
> > >>>>> PM,
> > >>>>>>> Anton
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Vinogradov
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> av@apache.org
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vova,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everything you described
> > >>>>> sound
> > >>>>>>> good
> > >>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>> me.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to propose to
> > >>> create
> > >>>>>>>> special
> > >>>>>>>>>> page
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> at
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> AI
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wiki
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> describe
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checklist.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In case we'll find
> > >>> something
> > >>>>>>> should
> > >>>>>>>> be
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changed/improved
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> easy
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> update the page.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018-04-20 0:53 GMT+03:00
> > >>>>>> Nikolay
> > >>>>>>>>>> Izhikov
> > >>>>>>>>>>> <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nizhikov@apache.org
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Vladimir.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for seting up
> > >>>>> this
> > >>>>>>>>>> discussion.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As we discussed, I
> > >> think
> > >>> an
> > >>>>>>>>> important
> > >>>>>>>>>>> part
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> check
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compatibility rules.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * What should be
> > >> backward
> > >>>>>>>>> compatible?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * How should we
> > >> maintain
> > >>>>> it?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) If ticket changes
> > >>>>> public
> > >>>>>>> API
> > >>>>>>>> or
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> existing
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commiters should
> > >> approve
> > >>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>> changes
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can learn from other
> > >>>>> open
> > >>>>>>>> source
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> project
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experience.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apache Kafka [1], for
> > >>>>> example,
> > >>>>>>>>>> requires
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> KIP(kafka
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improvement
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposal)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for *every* major
> > >> change.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Major change definition
> > >>>>>> includes
> > >>>>>>>>>> public
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> API.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> > >>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conf
>

Re: Ticket review checklist

[Dmitry Pavlov <dp...@gmail.com>]

Petr, good point. It is more intuitive, we should mark test we can ignore
by mute.

So Vladimir, you or other Ignite veteran can mute test, if can say it is
not important.

чт, 24 мая 2018 г. в 15:07, Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com>:

> Why cannot we mute (and file corresponding tickets) all test failures
> (including flaky) to some date and start initiative Green TC?
>
>
>
> > On 24 May 2018, at 15:04, Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com> wrote:
> >
> > Dmitry,
> >
> > We cannot add this requirements, because we do have failures on TC. This
> > requirement implies that all development would stop until TC is green.
> > We never had old requirement work, neither we need to enforce it now.
> >
> > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 2:59 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <dp...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> 3.c
> >>
> >>   1. All test suites *MUST* be run on TeamCity [3] before merge to
> master,
> >>   there *MUST NOT* be any test failures
> >>
> >>
> >> 'New' word should be removed because we cant separate `new` and `non
> new`
> >> failures.
> >>
> >> Let's imagine example, we have 50 green runs in master. And PR Run-All
> >> contains this test failed. Is it new or not new? Actually we don't know.
> >>
> >> Existing requirement is about all TC must be green, so let's keep it as
> is.
> >>
> >> ср, 23 мая 2018 г. в 17:02, Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>:
> >>
> >>> Igniters,
> >>>
> >>> I created review checklist on WIKI [1] and also fixed related pages
> (e.g.
> >>> "How To Contribute"). Please let me know if you have any comments
> before
> >> I
> >>> go with public announce.
> >>>
> >>> Vladimir.
> >>>
> >>> [1]
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Review+Checklist
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:10 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <vozerov@gridgain.com
> >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Ilya,
> >>>>
> >>>> We define that exception messages *SHOULD* have clear explanation on
> >> what
> >>>> is wrong. *SHOULD* mean that the rule should be followed unless there
> >> is
> >>> a
> >>>> reason not to follow. In your case you refer to some unexpected
> >> behavior.
> >>>> I.e. an exceptional situation developer is not aware of. In this case
> >> for
> >>>> sure we cannot force contributor to explain what is wrong, because,
> >> well,
> >>>> we don't know. This is why we relaxed the rule from *MUST* to
> *SHOULD*.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Ilya Kasnacheev <
> >>>> ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I don't think I quite understand how exception explanations should
> >> work.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Imagine we have the following exception:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> // At least RuntimeException can be thrown by the code above when
> >>>>> GridCacheContext is cleaned and there is
> >>>>> // an attempt to use cleaned resources.
> >>>>> U.error(log, "Unexpected exception during cache update", e);
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I mean, we genuinely don't know what happened here.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Under new rules, what kind of "workaround" would that exception
> >> suggest?
> >>>>> "Try turning it off and then back on"?
> >>>>> What explanation how to resolve this exception can we offer? "Please
> >>> write
> >>>>> to dev@apache.ignite.org or to Apache JIRA, and then wait for a
> >> release
> >>>>> with fix?"
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm really confused how we can implement 1.6 and 1.7 when dealing
> with
> >>>>> messy real-world code.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2018-05-10 11:39 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Andrey, Anton, Alex
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Agree, *SHOULD* is more appropriate here.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Please see latest version below. Does anyone want to add or change
> >>>>>> something? Let's wait for several days for more feedback and then
> >>>>> publish
> >>>>>> and announce this list. Note that it would not be carved in stone
> >> and
> >>> we
> >>>>>> will be able to change it at any time if needed.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 1) API
> >>>>>> 1.1) API compatibility *MUST* be maintained between minor releases.
> >> Do
> >>>>> not
> >>>>>> remove existing methods or change their signatures, deprecate them
> >>>>> instead
> >>>>>> 1.2) Default behaviour "SHOULD NOT* be changed between minor
> >> releases,
> >>>>>> unless absolutely needed. If change is made, it *MUST* be described
> >> in
> >>>>>> "Migration Guide"
> >>>>>> 1.3) New operation *MUST* be well-documented in code (javadoc,
> >>>>> dotnetdoc):
> >>>>>> documentation must contain method's purpose, description of
> >> parameters
> >>>>> and
> >>>>>> how their values affect the outcome, description of return value and
> >>>>> it's
> >>>>>> default, behavior in negative cases, interaction with other
> >> operations
> >>>>> and
> >>>>>> components
> >>>>>> 1.4) API parity between Java and .NET platforms *SHOULD* be
> >> maintained
> >>>>> when
> >>>>>> operation makes sense on both platforms. If method cannot be
> >>>>> implemented in
> >>>>>> a platform immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be created and linked
> >>> to
> >>>>>> current ticket
> >>>>>> 1.5) API parity between thin clients (Java, .NET) *SHOULD* be
> >>> maintained
> >>>>>> when operation makes sense on several clients. If method cannot be
> >>>>>> implemented in a client immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be
> >> created
> >>>>> and
> >>>>>> linked to current ticket
> >>>>>> 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user **SHOULD** have explanation how
> >>> to
> >>>>>> resolve, workaround or debug an error
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 2) Compatibility
> >>>>>> 2.1) Persistence backward compatibility *MUST* be maintained between
> >>>>> minor
> >>>>>> releases. It should be possible to start newer version on data files
> >>>>>> created by the previous version
> >>>>>> 2.2) Thin client forward and backward compatibility *SHOULD* be
> >>>>> maintained
> >>>>>> between two consecutive minor releases. If compatibility cannot be
> >>>>>> maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
> >>>>>> 2.3) JDBC and ODBC forward and backward compatibility *SHOULD* be
> >>>>>> maintained between two consecutive minor releases. If compatibility
> >>>>> cannot
> >>>>>> be maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 3) Tests
> >>>>>> 3.1) New functionality *MUST* be covered with unit tests for both
> >>>>> positive
> >>>>>> and negative use cases
> >>>>>> 3.2) All test suites *MUST* be run before merge to master..There
> >>> *MUST*
> >>>>> be
> >>>>>> no new test failures
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 4) Code style *MUST* be followed as per Ignite's Coding Guidelines
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Vladimir.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 1:05 PM, Andrey Kuznetsov <stkuzma@gmail.com
> >>>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Anton,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I agree, *MUST* for exception reasons and *SHOULD* for ways of
> >>>>> resolution
> >>>>>>> sound clearer.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 2018-05-08 12:56 GMT+03:00 Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Andrey,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> How about
> >>>>>>>> 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user *MUST* have explanation of
> >>>>>>> workaround
> >>>>>>>> and contain original error.
> >>>>>>>> All exceptions thrown to a user *SHOULD* have explanation how to
> >>>>>> resolve
> >>>>>>> if
> >>>>>>>> possible.
> >>>>>>>> ?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> вт, 8 мая 2018 г. в 12:26, Andrey Kuznetsov <stkuzma@gmail.com
> >>> :
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Vladimir, checklist looks pleasant enough for me.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I'd like to suggest one minor change. In 1.6 *MUST* seems to
> >> be
> >>>>> too
> >>>>>>>> strict,
> >>>>>>>>> *SHOULD* would be enough. It can be frustrating for API user
> >> if
> >>> I
> >>>>>>> explain
> >>>>>>>>> how to fix NPEs in a trivial way, for example.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 2018-05-08 11:34 GMT+03:00 Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Alex,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> It is not sounds like that, obviously.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Tests should cover all negative and positive cases.
> >>>>>>>>>> You should add enough tests to cover all cases.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Sometimes one test can cover more than one case, so two
> >> tests
> >>>>> *CAN*
> >>>>>>>>>> partially check same things.
> >>>>>>>>>> In case some cases already covered you should not create
> >>>>>> duplicates.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> вт, 8 мая 2018 г. в 10:19, Александр Меньшиков <
> >>>>>> sharplermc@gmail.com
> >>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Vladimir, the 3.1 is a bit unclear for me. Which code
> >>>>> coverage is
> >>>>>>>>>>> acceptable? Now it sounds like two tests are enough (one
> >> for
> >>>>>>> positive
> >>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>> one for negative cases).
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> 2018-05-07 23:09 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> >>>>>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org
> >>>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Is this list on the Wiki?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 7:26 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> >>>>>>>>> vozerov@gridgain.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the checklist I have at the moment. Please let
> >>> me
> >>>>>> know
> >>>>>>> if
> >>>>>>>>> you
> >>>>>>>>>>>> have
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> any comments on existing items, or want to add or
> >> remove
> >>>>>>>> anything.
> >>>>>>>>> It
> >>>>>>>>>>>> looks
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> like we may have not only strict rules, but *nice to
> >>> have*
> >>>>>>> points
> >>>>>>>>>> here
> >>>>>>>>>>> as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> well with help of *MUST*, *SHOULD* and *MAY* words as
> >>> per
> >>>>>>> RFC2119
> >>>>>>>>>> [1].
> >>>>>>>>>>> So
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> please feel free to suggest optional items as well.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) API
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.1) API compatibility *MUST* be maintained between
> >>> minor
> >>>>>>>> releases.
> >>>>>>>>>> Do
> >>>>>>>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> remove existing methods or change their signatures,
> >>>>> deprecate
> >>>>>>>> them
> >>>>>>>>>>>> instead
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.2) Default behaviour "SHOULD NOT* be changed between
> >>>>> minor
> >>>>>>>>>> releases,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> unless absolutely needed. If change is made, it *MUST*
> >>> be
> >>>>>>>> described
> >>>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Migration Guide"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.3) New operation *MUST* be well-documented in code
> >>>>>> (javadoc,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> dotnetdoc):
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> documentation must contain method's purpose,
> >> description
> >>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>> parameters
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> how their values affect the outcome, description of
> >>> return
> >>>>>>> value
> >>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>> it's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> default, behavior in negative cases, interaction with
> >>>>> other
> >>>>>>>>>> operations
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> components
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.4) API parity between Java and .NET platforms
> >> *SHOULD*
> >>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>> maintained
> >>>>>>>>>>>> when
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> operation makes sense on both platforms. If method
> >>> cannot
> >>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>> implemented
> >>>>>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> a platform immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be
> >>> created
> >>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>> linked
> >>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> current ticket
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.5) API parity between thin clients (Java, .NET)
> >>>>> *SHOULD* be
> >>>>>>>>>>> maintained
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> when operation makes sense on several clients. If
> >> method
> >>>>>> cannot
> >>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> implemented in a client immediately, new JIRA ticket
> >>>>> *MUST*
> >>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>> created
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> linked to current ticket
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user *MUST* have
> >>>>> explanation
> >>>>>>> how
> >>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> resolve, workaround or debug an error
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Compatibility
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.1) Persistence backward compatibility *MUST* be
> >>>>> maintained
> >>>>>>>>> between
> >>>>>>>>>>>> minor
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> releases. It should be possible to start newer version
> >>> on
> >>>>>> data
> >>>>>>>>> files
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> created by the previous version
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.2) Thin client forward and backward compatibility
> >>>>> *SHOULD*
> >>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>> maintained
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> between two consecutive minor releases. If
> >> compatibility
> >>>>>> cannot
> >>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.3) JDBC and ODBC forward and backward compatibility
> >>>>>> *SHOULD*
> >>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> maintained between two consecutive minor releases. If
> >>>>>>>> compatibility
> >>>>>>>>>>>> cannot
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> be maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration
> >>> Guide"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) Tests
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.1) New functionality *MUST* be covered with unit
> >> tests
> >>>>> for
> >>>>>>> both
> >>>>>>>>>>>> positive
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and negative use cases
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.2) All test suites *MUST* be run before merge to
> >>>>>>> master..There
> >>>>>>>>>> *MUST*
> >>>>>>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> no new test failures
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 4) Code style *MUST* be followed as per Ignite's
> >> Coding
> >>>>>>>> Guidelines
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Vladimir.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> >>>>>>>>>> vozerov@gridgain.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Dmitry,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I'll do that in the nearest days.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <
> >>>>>>>>>>> dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters, the idea was related to small
> >> refactorings
> >>>>>>>> co-located
> >>>>>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> main
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Main change itself indicates that existing code did
> >>> not
> >>>>>> meet
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> criteria
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of practice. Approving of standalone refactorings
> >>>>> instead
> >>>>>>>>>>> contradicts
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> principle don't touch if it works. So I still like
> >>>>> idea of
> >>>>>>>>>>> co-located
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes improving code, javadocs, style, etc.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But let's not argue about this point now, let's
> >>>>> summarize
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> undisputed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> points and add it to the wiki. Vladimir, would you
> >>>>> please
> >>>>>> do
> >>>>>>>> it?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 25 апр. 2018 г. в 16:42, Nikolay Izhikov <
> >>>>>>>>> nizhikov@apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with Vova.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't fix if it works!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you 100% sure then it a useful addition to the
> >>>>>> product
> >>>>>>> -
> >>>>>>>>> just
> >>>>>>>>>>>> make
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate ticket.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> В Ср, 25/04/2018 в 11:44 +0300, Vladimir Ozerov
> >>>>> пишет:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guys,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem with in-place refactorings is that
> >>> you
> >>>>>>>> increase
> >>>>>>>>>>>> affected
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scope.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not uncommon to break compatibility or
> >>> public
> >>>>>>>>> contracts
> >>>>>>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> minor things. E.g. recently we decided drop
> >>>>> org.jsr166
> >>>>>>>>> package
> >>>>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> favor
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Java 8 classes. Innocent change. Result -
> >> broken
> >>>>>>> storage.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Another
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is conflicts. It is not uncommon to have
> >>> long-lived
> >>>>>>>> branches
> >>>>>>>>>>> which
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to merge with master over and over again. And a
> >>>>> lot of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> refactorings
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conflicts. It is much easier to resolve them if
> >>> you
> >>>>>> know
> >>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>> logic
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affected as opposed to cases when you need to
> >>>>> resolve
> >>>>>>> both
> >>>>>>>>>>> renames
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> method extractions along with business-logic
> >>>>> changes.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to repeat - if you have a time for
> >>>>>> refactoring
> >>>>>>>> then
> >>>>>>>>>> you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitely
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a time to extract these changes to
> >> separate
> >>> PR
> >>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>> submit a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ticket. I am quite understand what "low
> >> priority"
> >>>>> do
> >>>>>> you
> >>>>>>>>> mean
> >>>>>>>>>> if
> >>>>>>>>>>>> you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> refactorings on your own.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 10:52 PM, Andrey
> >>> Kuznetsov
> >>>>> <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> stkuzma@gmail.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once again, I beg for "small refactoring
> >>>>> permission"
> >>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> checklist.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> today, separate tickets for small
> >> refactorings
> >>>>> has
> >>>>>>>> lowest
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> priority,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they neither fix any flaw nor add new
> >>>>> functionality.
> >>>>>>>> Also,
> >>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attempts to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make issue-related code safer / cleaner /
> >> more
> >>>>>>> readable
> >>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "real"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pull
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requests are typically rejected, since they
> >>>>>> contradict
> >>>>>>>> our
> >>>>>>>>>>>> current
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guidelines.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I understand this will require a bit more
> >>> effort
> >>>>>> from
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committer/maintainer,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but otherwise we will get constantly
> >> degrading
> >>>>> code
> >>>>>>>>> quality.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018-04-24 18:52 GMT+03:00 Eduard Shangareev
> >> <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eduard.shangareev@gmail.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vladimir,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am not talking about
> >> massive/sophisticated
> >>>>>>>>> refactoring.
> >>>>>>>>>>> But
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that ask to extract some methods should be
> >> OK
> >>>>> to
> >>>>>> do
> >>>>>>>>>> without
> >>>>>>>>>>> an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extra
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ticket.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A checklist shouldn't be necessarily a set
> >> of
> >>>>>>> certain
> >>>>>>>>>> rules
> >>>>>>>>>>>> but
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could include suggestion and reminders.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 6:39 PM, Vladimir
> >>>>> Ozerov <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vozerov@gridgain.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ed,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Refactoring is a separate task. If you
> >>> would
> >>>>>> like
> >>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>> rework
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exchange
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - please do this in a ticket "Refactor
> >>>>> exchange
> >>>>>>>> task",
> >>>>>>>>>>>> nobody
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this. This is just a matter of creating
> >>>>> separate
> >>>>>>>>> ticket
> >>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one have a time for refactoring, it
> >> should
> >>>>> not
> >>>>>> be
> >>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>> problem
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> him to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spend several minutes on JIRA and GitHub.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As far as documentation - what you
> >> describe
> >>>>> is
> >>>>>>>> normal
> >>>>>>>>>>> review
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reviewer might want to ask contributor to
> >>> fix
> >>>>>>>>> something.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Checklist
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different thing - this is a set of rules
> >>>>> which
> >>>>>>> must
> >>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> followed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do not understand how you can define
> >>>>>>> documentation
> >>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checklist.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Same problem with logging - what is
> >>> "enough"?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Eduard
> >>>>>>> Shangareev <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't understand why you are so
> >> against
> >>>>>>>>> refactoring.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Code already smells like hell. Methods
> >>> 200+
> >>>>>> line
> >>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>>> normal.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Exchange
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is asking to be separated on several
> >> one.
> >>>>>>>>> Transaction
> >>>>>>>>>>> code
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> few people.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we separate refactoring from
> >>>>> development it
> >>>>>>>> would
> >>>>>>>>>>> mean
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no one
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Documentation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everything which was asked by reviewers
> >>> to
> >>>>>>> clarify
> >>>>>>>>>> idea
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reflected
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the code.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) Logging.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Logging should be enough to
> >> troubleshoot
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> problem
> >>>>>>>>>> if
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comes
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user-list with an issue in the code.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 7:06 PM, Dmitry
> >>>>>> Pavlov <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Igniters,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 to idea of checklist.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 to refactoring and documenting
> >> code
> >>>>>> related
> >>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>> ticket
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +/-20
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOC
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we start to do it as part of our
> >>>>> regular
> >>>>>>>>>>>> contribution,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better, it would became common
> >> practice
> >>>>> and
> >>>>>>> part
> >>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Apache
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> development culure.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we will hope we will have free
> >> time
> >>> to
> >>>>>>> submit
> >>>>>>>>>>>> separate
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patch
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someday
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have patience to complete
> >>>>> patch-submission
> >>>>>>>>> process,
> >>>>>>>>>>> code
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remain
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undocumented and poor-readable.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sincerely,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy Pavlov
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пт, 20 апр. 2018 г. в 18:56,
> >> Александр
> >>>>>>>> Меньшиков <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sharplermc@gmail.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4) Metrics.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partially +1
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It makes sense to have some minimal
> >>>>> code
> >>>>>>>>> coverage
> >>>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMHO.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, we can limit the cyclomatic
> >>>>>> complexity
> >>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> new
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6) Refactoring
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -1
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I understand why people want to
> >>>>> refactor
> >>>>>> old
> >>>>>>>>> code.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I think refactoring should be
> >>>>> always a
> >>>>>>>>>> separate
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> task.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And it's better to remove all
> >>>>> refactoring
> >>>>>>> from
> >>>>>>>>> PR,
> >>>>>>>>>>> if
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> it's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the issue.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018-04-20 16:54 GMT+03:00 Andrey
> >>>>>> Kuznetsov
> >>>>>>> <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stkuzma@gmail.com>:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What about adding the following
> >>> item
> >>>>> to
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> checklist:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adds
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new functionality, then unit
> >> tests
> >>>>>> should
> >>>>>>>> also
> >>>>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provided, if
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technically possible?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for refactorings, in fact they
> >>> are
> >>>>>>>> strongly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discouraged
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> today
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unclear reason. Let's permit to
> >>> make
> >>>>>>>>>> refactorings
> >>>>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checklist
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussed. (Of cource,
> >> refactoring
> >>>>>> should
> >>>>>>>>> relate
> >>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solved.)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018-04-20 16:16 GMT+03:00
> >> Vladimir
> >>>>>>> Ozerov <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vozerov@gridgain.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Ed,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately some of these
> >>> points
> >>>>> are
> >>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>> good
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> candidates
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checklist because of these:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - It must be clear and disallow
> >>>>>>> *multiple
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interpretations*
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - It must be *lightweight*,
> >>>>> otherwise
> >>>>>>>> Ignite
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> development
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> become a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nightmare
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We cannot have "nice to have"
> >>>>> points
> >>>>>>> here.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Checklist
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question "is ticket eligible to
> >>> be
> >>>>>>>> merged?"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Code style.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Documentation
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -1, it is impossible to define
> >>>>> what is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "well-documented". A
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> piece
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could be obvious for one
> >>>>> contributor,
> >>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> non-obvious
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case this is not a blocker for
> >>>>> merge.
> >>>>>>>>> Instead,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> during
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ask
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementer to add more docs,
> >> but
> >>>>> it
> >>>>>>>> cannot
> >>>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> forced.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) Logging
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -1, same problem - what is
> >>> "enough
> >>>>>>>>> logging?".
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Enough
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whom?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand whether it is enough
> >>> or
> >>>>>> not?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4) Metrics
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -1, no clear boundaries, and
> >>>>> decision
> >>>>>> on
> >>>>>>>>>> whether
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> metrics
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> added
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not should be performed during
> >>>>> design
> >>>>>>>> phase.
> >>>>>>>>>> As
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perfectly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valid to ask contributor to add
> >>>>>> metrics
> >>>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>>>> clear
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this is not part of the
> >>> checklist.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5) TC status
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1, already mentioned
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6) Refactoring
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Strong -1. OOP is a slippery
> >>> slope,
> >>>>>>> there
> >>>>>>>>> are
> >>>>>>>>>> no
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> good
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and bad
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> receipts
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all cases, hence it cannot be
> >>> used
> >>>>> in
> >>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>> checklist.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can borrow useful rules from
> >>>>> p.2,
> >>>>>> p.3
> >>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>> p.4
> >>>>>>>>>>>> if
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clear
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions on how to measure
> >>> them.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vladimir.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:50
> >> PM,
> >>>>>> Eduard
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Shangareev <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eduard.shangareev@gmail.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, I want to add some
> >>>>> technical
> >>>>>>>>>>> requirement.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Code style.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The code needs to be
> >> formatted
> >>>>>>> according
> >>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> coding
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guidelines
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/
> >>>>>>>>>> confluence/display/IGNITE/
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Coding+Guidelines
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code must not contain TODOs
> >>>>> without
> >>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>> ticket
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is highly recommended to
> >>> make
> >>>>>> major
> >>>>>>>>>>>> formatting
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as a separate commit, to make
> >>>>> review
> >>>>>>>>> process
> >>>>>>>>>>>> more
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> practical.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Documentation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Added code should be
> >>>>>> well-documented.
> >>>>>>>> Any
> >>>>>>>>>>>> methods
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> raise
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regarding their code flow,
> >>>>>> invariants,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> synchronization,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc.,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> documented with comprehensive
> >>>>>> javadoc.
> >>>>>>>> Any
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> reviewer
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> request
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular added method be
> >>>>>> documented.
> >>>>>>>>> Also,
> >>>>>>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> practice
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> document old code in a 10-20
> >>>>> lines
> >>>>>>>> region
> >>>>>>>>>>> around
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) Logging.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Make sure that there are
> >> enough
> >>>>>>> logging
> >>>>>>>>>> added
> >>>>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> category
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible diagnostic in field.
> >>>>> Check
> >>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>> logging
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> messages
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spelled.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4) Metrics.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are there any metrics that
> >> need
> >>>>> to
> >>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>> exposed
> >>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5) TC status.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Recheck that there are no new
> >>>>>> failing
> >>>>>>>>> tests
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6) Refactoring.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The code should be better
> >> than
> >>>>>> before:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - extract method from big
> >>> one;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - do anything else to make
> >>>>> code
> >>>>>>>> clearer
> >>>>>>>>>>>> (don't
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forget
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   OOP-practise, replace
> >>> if-else
> >>>>>> hell
> >>>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inheritance
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - split refactoring
> >>> (renaming,
> >>>>>> code
> >>>>>>>>>> format)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> from
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   separate commit
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:23
> >>> PM,
> >>>>>>> Eduard
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Shangareev <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eduard.shangareev@gmail.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, guys.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe that we should
> >>> update
> >>>>>>>>>> maintainers
> >>>>>>>>>>>> list
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adding
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requirement.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There should not be the
> >>>>> situation
> >>>>>>> when
> >>>>>>>>>> there
> >>>>>>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributor
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is responsible for a
> >>> component.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We already have issues with
> >>>>> review
> >>>>>>>> speed
> >>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> response
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at
> >> 2:17
> >>>>> PM,
> >>>>>>> Anton
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Vinogradov
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> av@apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vova,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everything you described
> >>>>> sound
> >>>>>>> good
> >>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>> me.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to propose to
> >>> create
> >>>>>>>> special
> >>>>>>>>>> page
> >>>>>>>>>>>> at
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> AI
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wiki
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> describe
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checklist.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In case we'll find
> >>> something
> >>>>>>> should
> >>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changed/improved
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> easy
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> update the page.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018-04-20 0:53 GMT+03:00
> >>>>>> Nikolay
> >>>>>>>>>> Izhikov
> >>>>>>>>>>> <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nizhikov@apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Vladimir.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for seting up
> >>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>> discussion.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As we discussed, I
> >> think
> >>> an
> >>>>>>>>> important
> >>>>>>>>>>> part
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> check
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compatibility rules.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * What should be
> >> backward
> >>>>>>>>> compatible?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * How should we
> >> maintain
> >>>>> it?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) If ticket changes
> >>>>> public
> >>>>>>> API
> >>>>>>>> or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> existing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commiters should
> >> approve
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> changes
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can learn from other
> >>>>> open
> >>>>>>>> source
> >>>>>>>>>>>> project
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experience.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apache Kafka [1], for
> >>>>> example,
> >>>>>>>>>> requires
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> KIP(kafka
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improvement
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposal)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for *every* major
> >> change.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Major change definition
> >>>>>> includes
> >>>>>>>>>> public
> >>>>>>>>>>>> API.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> >>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conf

Re: Ticket review checklist

[Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com>]

Why cannot we mute (and file corresponding tickets) all test failures (including flaky) to some date and start initiative Green TC?



> On 24 May 2018, at 15:04, Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com> wrote:
> 
> Dmitry,
> 
> We cannot add this requirements, because we do have failures on TC. This
> requirement implies that all development would stop until TC is green.
> We never had old requirement work, neither we need to enforce it now.
> 
> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 2:59 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <dp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> 3.c
>> 
>>   1. All test suites *MUST* be run on TeamCity [3] before merge to master,
>>   there *MUST NOT* be any test failures
>> 
>> 
>> 'New' word should be removed because we cant separate `new` and `non new`
>> failures.
>> 
>> Let's imagine example, we have 50 green runs in master. And PR Run-All
>> contains this test failed. Is it new or not new? Actually we don't know.
>> 
>> Existing requirement is about all TC must be green, so let's keep it as is.
>> 
>> ср, 23 мая 2018 г. в 17:02, Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>:
>> 
>>> Igniters,
>>> 
>>> I created review checklist on WIKI [1] and also fixed related pages (e.g.
>>> "How To Contribute"). Please let me know if you have any comments before
>> I
>>> go with public announce.
>>> 
>>> Vladimir.
>>> 
>>> [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Review+Checklist
>>> 
>>> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:10 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Ilya,
>>>> 
>>>> We define that exception messages *SHOULD* have clear explanation on
>> what
>>>> is wrong. *SHOULD* mean that the rule should be followed unless there
>> is
>>> a
>>>> reason not to follow. In your case you refer to some unexpected
>> behavior.
>>>> I.e. an exceptional situation developer is not aware of. In this case
>> for
>>>> sure we cannot force contributor to explain what is wrong, because,
>> well,
>>>> we don't know. This is why we relaxed the rule from *MUST* to *SHOULD*.
>>>> 
>>>> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Ilya Kasnacheev <
>>>> ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> I don't think I quite understand how exception explanations should
>> work.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Imagine we have the following exception:
>>>>> 
>>>>> // At least RuntimeException can be thrown by the code above when
>>>>> GridCacheContext is cleaned and there is
>>>>> // an attempt to use cleaned resources.
>>>>> U.error(log, "Unexpected exception during cache update", e);
>>>>> 
>>>>> I mean, we genuinely don't know what happened here.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Under new rules, what kind of "workaround" would that exception
>> suggest?
>>>>> "Try turning it off and then back on"?
>>>>> What explanation how to resolve this exception can we offer? "Please
>>> write
>>>>> to dev@apache.ignite.org or to Apache JIRA, and then wait for a
>> release
>>>>> with fix?"
>>>>> 
>>>>> I'm really confused how we can implement 1.6 and 1.7 when dealing with
>>>>> messy real-world code.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2018-05-10 11:39 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Andrey, Anton, Alex
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Agree, *SHOULD* is more appropriate here.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Please see latest version below. Does anyone want to add or change
>>>>>> something? Let's wait for several days for more feedback and then
>>>>> publish
>>>>>> and announce this list. Note that it would not be carved in stone
>> and
>>> we
>>>>>> will be able to change it at any time if needed.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 1) API
>>>>>> 1.1) API compatibility *MUST* be maintained between minor releases.
>> Do
>>>>> not
>>>>>> remove existing methods or change their signatures, deprecate them
>>>>> instead
>>>>>> 1.2) Default behaviour "SHOULD NOT* be changed between minor
>> releases,
>>>>>> unless absolutely needed. If change is made, it *MUST* be described
>> in
>>>>>> "Migration Guide"
>>>>>> 1.3) New operation *MUST* be well-documented in code (javadoc,
>>>>> dotnetdoc):
>>>>>> documentation must contain method's purpose, description of
>> parameters
>>>>> and
>>>>>> how their values affect the outcome, description of return value and
>>>>> it's
>>>>>> default, behavior in negative cases, interaction with other
>> operations
>>>>> and
>>>>>> components
>>>>>> 1.4) API parity between Java and .NET platforms *SHOULD* be
>> maintained
>>>>> when
>>>>>> operation makes sense on both platforms. If method cannot be
>>>>> implemented in
>>>>>> a platform immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be created and linked
>>> to
>>>>>> current ticket
>>>>>> 1.5) API parity between thin clients (Java, .NET) *SHOULD* be
>>> maintained
>>>>>> when operation makes sense on several clients. If method cannot be
>>>>>> implemented in a client immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be
>> created
>>>>> and
>>>>>> linked to current ticket
>>>>>> 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user **SHOULD** have explanation how
>>> to
>>>>>> resolve, workaround or debug an error
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 2) Compatibility
>>>>>> 2.1) Persistence backward compatibility *MUST* be maintained between
>>>>> minor
>>>>>> releases. It should be possible to start newer version on data files
>>>>>> created by the previous version
>>>>>> 2.2) Thin client forward and backward compatibility *SHOULD* be
>>>>> maintained
>>>>>> between two consecutive minor releases. If compatibility cannot be
>>>>>> maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
>>>>>> 2.3) JDBC and ODBC forward and backward compatibility *SHOULD* be
>>>>>> maintained between two consecutive minor releases. If compatibility
>>>>> cannot
>>>>>> be maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 3) Tests
>>>>>> 3.1) New functionality *MUST* be covered with unit tests for both
>>>>> positive
>>>>>> and negative use cases
>>>>>> 3.2) All test suites *MUST* be run before merge to master..There
>>> *MUST*
>>>>> be
>>>>>> no new test failures
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 4) Code style *MUST* be followed as per Ignite's Coding Guidelines
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Vladimir.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 1:05 PM, Andrey Kuznetsov <stkuzma@gmail.com
>>> 
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Anton,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I agree, *MUST* for exception reasons and *SHOULD* for ways of
>>>>> resolution
>>>>>>> sound clearer.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 2018-05-08 12:56 GMT+03:00 Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Andrey,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> How about
>>>>>>>> 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user *MUST* have explanation of
>>>>>>> workaround
>>>>>>>> and contain original error.
>>>>>>>> All exceptions thrown to a user *SHOULD* have explanation how to
>>>>>> resolve
>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>> possible.
>>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> вт, 8 мая 2018 г. в 12:26, Andrey Kuznetsov <stkuzma@gmail.com
>>> :
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Vladimir, checklist looks pleasant enough for me.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I'd like to suggest one minor change. In 1.6 *MUST* seems to
>> be
>>>>> too
>>>>>>>> strict,
>>>>>>>>> *SHOULD* would be enough. It can be frustrating for API user
>> if
>>> I
>>>>>>> explain
>>>>>>>>> how to fix NPEs in a trivial way, for example.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 2018-05-08 11:34 GMT+03:00 Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Alex,
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> It is not sounds like that, obviously.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Tests should cover all negative and positive cases.
>>>>>>>>>> You should add enough tests to cover all cases.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Sometimes one test can cover more than one case, so two
>> tests
>>>>> *CAN*
>>>>>>>>>> partially check same things.
>>>>>>>>>> In case some cases already covered you should not create
>>>>>> duplicates.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> вт, 8 мая 2018 г. в 10:19, Александр Меньшиков <
>>>>>> sharplermc@gmail.com
>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Vladimir, the 3.1 is a bit unclear for me. Which code
>>>>> coverage is
>>>>>>>>>>> acceptable? Now it sounds like two tests are enough (one
>> for
>>>>>>> positive
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> one for negative cases).
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 2018-05-07 23:09 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <
>>>>>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org
>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Is this list on the Wiki?
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 7:26 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <
>>>>>>>>> vozerov@gridgain.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the checklist I have at the moment. Please let
>>> me
>>>>>> know
>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> any comments on existing items, or want to add or
>> remove
>>>>>>>> anything.
>>>>>>>>> It
>>>>>>>>>>>> looks
>>>>>>>>>>>>> like we may have not only strict rules, but *nice to
>>> have*
>>>>>>> points
>>>>>>>>>> here
>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> well with help of *MUST*, *SHOULD* and *MAY* words as
>>> per
>>>>>>> RFC2119
>>>>>>>>>> [1].
>>>>>>>>>>> So
>>>>>>>>>>>>> please feel free to suggest optional items as well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) API
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.1) API compatibility *MUST* be maintained between
>>> minor
>>>>>>>> releases.
>>>>>>>>>> Do
>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> remove existing methods or change their signatures,
>>>>> deprecate
>>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>>>>>> instead
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.2) Default behaviour "SHOULD NOT* be changed between
>>>>> minor
>>>>>>>>>> releases,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> unless absolutely needed. If change is made, it *MUST*
>>> be
>>>>>>>> described
>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Migration Guide"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.3) New operation *MUST* be well-documented in code
>>>>>> (javadoc,
>>>>>>>>>>>> dotnetdoc):
>>>>>>>>>>>>> documentation must contain method's purpose,
>> description
>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> parameters
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> how their values affect the outcome, description of
>>> return
>>>>>>> value
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> default, behavior in negative cases, interaction with
>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>> operations
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> components
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.4) API parity between Java and .NET platforms
>> *SHOULD*
>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>> maintained
>>>>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>>>>> operation makes sense on both platforms. If method
>>> cannot
>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>> implemented
>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a platform immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be
>>> created
>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> linked
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> current ticket
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.5) API parity between thin clients (Java, .NET)
>>>>> *SHOULD* be
>>>>>>>>>>> maintained
>>>>>>>>>>>>> when operation makes sense on several clients. If
>> method
>>>>>> cannot
>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> implemented in a client immediately, new JIRA ticket
>>>>> *MUST*
>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>> created
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> linked to current ticket
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user *MUST* have
>>>>> explanation
>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> resolve, workaround or debug an error
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Compatibility
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.1) Persistence backward compatibility *MUST* be
>>>>> maintained
>>>>>>>>> between
>>>>>>>>>>>> minor
>>>>>>>>>>>>> releases. It should be possible to start newer version
>>> on
>>>>>> data
>>>>>>>>> files
>>>>>>>>>>>>> created by the previous version
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.2) Thin client forward and backward compatibility
>>>>> *SHOULD*
>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>> maintained
>>>>>>>>>>>>> between two consecutive minor releases. If
>> compatibility
>>>>>> cannot
>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.3) JDBC and ODBC forward and backward compatibility
>>>>>> *SHOULD*
>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> maintained between two consecutive minor releases. If
>>>>>>>> compatibility
>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration
>>> Guide"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) Tests
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.1) New functionality *MUST* be covered with unit
>> tests
>>>>> for
>>>>>>> both
>>>>>>>>>>>> positive
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and negative use cases
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.2) All test suites *MUST* be run before merge to
>>>>>>> master..There
>>>>>>>>>> *MUST*
>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> no new test failures
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4) Code style *MUST* be followed as per Ignite's
>> Coding
>>>>>>>> Guidelines
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vladimir.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
>>>>>>>>>> vozerov@gridgain.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Dmitry,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I'll do that in the nearest days.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <
>>>>>>>>>>> dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters, the idea was related to small
>> refactorings
>>>>>>>> co-located
>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> main
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Main change itself indicates that existing code did
>>> not
>>>>>> meet
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> criteria
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of practice. Approving of standalone refactorings
>>>>> instead
>>>>>>>>>>> contradicts
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> principle don't touch if it works. So I still like
>>>>> idea of
>>>>>>>>>>> co-located
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes improving code, javadocs, style, etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But let's not argue about this point now, let's
>>>>> summarize
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> undisputed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> points and add it to the wiki. Vladimir, would you
>>>>> please
>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>> it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 25 апр. 2018 г. в 16:42, Nikolay Izhikov <
>>>>>>>>> nizhikov@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with Vova.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't fix if it works!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you 100% sure then it a useful addition to the
>>>>>> product
>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate ticket.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> В Ср, 25/04/2018 в 11:44 +0300, Vladimir Ozerov
>>>>> пишет:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guys,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem with in-place refactorings is that
>>> you
>>>>>>>> increase
>>>>>>>>>>>> affected
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not uncommon to break compatibility or
>>> public
>>>>>>>>> contracts
>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> minor things. E.g. recently we decided drop
>>>>> org.jsr166
>>>>>>>>> package
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> favor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Java 8 classes. Innocent change. Result -
>> broken
>>>>>>> storage.
>>>>>>>>>>> Another
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is conflicts. It is not uncommon to have
>>> long-lived
>>>>>>>> branches
>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to merge with master over and over again. And a
>>>>> lot of
>>>>>>>>>>>> refactorings
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conflicts. It is much easier to resolve them if
>>> you
>>>>>> know
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> logic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affected as opposed to cases when you need to
>>>>> resolve
>>>>>>> both
>>>>>>>>>>> renames
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> method extractions along with business-logic
>>>>> changes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to repeat - if you have a time for
>>>>>> refactoring
>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a time to extract these changes to
>> separate
>>> PR
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> submit a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ticket. I am quite understand what "low
>> priority"
>>>>> do
>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>> mean
>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> refactorings on your own.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 10:52 PM, Andrey
>>> Kuznetsov
>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> stkuzma@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once again, I beg for "small refactoring
>>>>> permission"
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> checklist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> today, separate tickets for small
>> refactorings
>>>>> has
>>>>>>>> lowest
>>>>>>>>>>>>> priority,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they neither fix any flaw nor add new
>>>>> functionality.
>>>>>>>> Also,
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attempts to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make issue-related code safer / cleaner /
>> more
>>>>>>> readable
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>> "real"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pull
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requests are typically rejected, since they
>>>>>> contradict
>>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guidelines.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I understand this will require a bit more
>>> effort
>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committer/maintainer,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but otherwise we will get constantly
>> degrading
>>>>> code
>>>>>>>>> quality.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018-04-24 18:52 GMT+03:00 Eduard Shangareev
>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eduard.shangareev@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vladimir,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am not talking about
>> massive/sophisticated
>>>>>>>>> refactoring.
>>>>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that ask to extract some methods should be
>> OK
>>>>> to
>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>> without
>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extra
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ticket.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A checklist shouldn't be necessarily a set
>> of
>>>>>>> certain
>>>>>>>>>> rules
>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could include suggestion and reminders.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 6:39 PM, Vladimir
>>>>> Ozerov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vozerov@gridgain.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ed,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Refactoring is a separate task. If you
>>> would
>>>>>> like
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> rework
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exchange
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - please do this in a ticket "Refactor
>>>>> exchange
>>>>>>>> task",
>>>>>>>>>>>> nobody
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this. This is just a matter of creating
>>>>> separate
>>>>>>>>> ticket
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one have a time for refactoring, it
>> should
>>>>> not
>>>>>> be
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>> problem
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> him to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spend several minutes on JIRA and GitHub.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As far as documentation - what you
>> describe
>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> normal
>>>>>>>>>>> review
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reviewer might want to ask contributor to
>>> fix
>>>>>>>>> something.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Checklist
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different thing - this is a set of rules
>>>>> which
>>>>>>> must
>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> followed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do not understand how you can define
>>>>>>> documentation
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checklist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Same problem with logging - what is
>>> "enough"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Eduard
>>>>>>> Shangareev <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't understand why you are so
>> against
>>>>>>>>> refactoring.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Code already smells like hell. Methods
>>> 200+
>>>>>> line
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>> normal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Exchange
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is asking to be separated on several
>> one.
>>>>>>>>> Transaction
>>>>>>>>>>> code
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> few people.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we separate refactoring from
>>>>> development it
>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>> mean
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Documentation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everything which was asked by reviewers
>>> to
>>>>>>> clarify
>>>>>>>>>> idea
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reflected
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the code.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) Logging.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Logging should be enough to
>> troubleshoot
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> problem
>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user-list with an issue in the code.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 7:06 PM, Dmitry
>>>>>> Pavlov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Igniters,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 to idea of checklist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 to refactoring and documenting
>> code
>>>>>> related
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> ticket
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +/-20
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we start to do it as part of our
>>>>> regular
>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better, it would became common
>> practice
>>>>> and
>>>>>>> part
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> Apache
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> development culure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we will hope we will have free
>> time
>>> to
>>>>>>> submit
>>>>>>>>>>>> separate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someday
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have patience to complete
>>>>> patch-submission
>>>>>>>>> process,
>>>>>>>>>>> code
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undocumented and poor-readable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy Pavlov
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пт, 20 апр. 2018 г. в 18:56,
>> Александр
>>>>>>>> Меньшиков <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sharplermc@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4) Metrics.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partially +1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It makes sense to have some minimal
>>>>> code
>>>>>>>>> coverage
>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMHO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, we can limit the cyclomatic
>>>>>> complexity
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6) Refactoring
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I understand why people want to
>>>>> refactor
>>>>>> old
>>>>>>>>> code.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I think refactoring should be
>>>>> always a
>>>>>>>>>> separate
>>>>>>>>>>>>> task.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And it's better to remove all
>>>>> refactoring
>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>> PR,
>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018-04-20 16:54 GMT+03:00 Andrey
>>>>>> Kuznetsov
>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stkuzma@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What about adding the following
>>> item
>>>>> to
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> checklist:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adds
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new functionality, then unit
>> tests
>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provided, if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technically possible?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for refactorings, in fact they
>>> are
>>>>>>>> strongly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discouraged
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> today
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unclear reason. Let's permit to
>>> make
>>>>>>>>>> refactorings
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checklist
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussed. (Of cource,
>> refactoring
>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>> relate
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solved.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018-04-20 16:16 GMT+03:00
>> Vladimir
>>>>>>> Ozerov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vozerov@gridgain.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Ed,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately some of these
>>> points
>>>>> are
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>> good
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> candidates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checklist because of these:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - It must be clear and disallow
>>>>>>> *multiple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interpretations*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - It must be *lightweight*,
>>>>> otherwise
>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> development
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> become a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nightmare
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We cannot have "nice to have"
>>>>> points
>>>>>>> here.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Checklist
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question "is ticket eligible to
>>> be
>>>>>>>> merged?"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Code style.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Documentation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -1, it is impossible to define
>>>>> what is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "well-documented". A
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> piece
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could be obvious for one
>>>>> contributor,
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-obvious
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case this is not a blocker for
>>>>> merge.
>>>>>>>>> Instead,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> during
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ask
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementer to add more docs,
>> but
>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> cannot
>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> forced.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) Logging
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -1, same problem - what is
>>> "enough
>>>>>>>>> logging?".
>>>>>>>>>>>> Enough
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whom?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand whether it is enough
>>> or
>>>>>> not?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4) Metrics
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -1, no clear boundaries, and
>>>>> decision
>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>> whether
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> metrics
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> added
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not should be performed during
>>>>> design
>>>>>>>> phase.
>>>>>>>>>> As
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perfectly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valid to ask contributor to add
>>>>>> metrics
>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>> clear
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this is not part of the
>>> checklist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5) TC status
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1, already mentioned
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6) Refactoring
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Strong -1. OOP is a slippery
>>> slope,
>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>> good
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and bad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> receipts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all cases, hence it cannot be
>>> used
>>>>> in
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>> checklist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can borrow useful rules from
>>>>> p.2,
>>>>>> p.3
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> p.4
>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clear
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions on how to measure
>>> them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vladimir.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:50
>> PM,
>>>>>> Eduard
>>>>>>>>>>>> Shangareev <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eduard.shangareev@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, I want to add some
>>>>> technical
>>>>>>>>>>> requirement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Code style.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The code needs to be
>> formatted
>>>>>>> according
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> coding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guidelines
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/
>>>>>>>>>> confluence/display/IGNITE/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Coding+Guidelines
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code must not contain TODOs
>>>>> without
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> ticket
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is highly recommended to
>>> make
>>>>>> major
>>>>>>>>>>>> formatting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as a separate commit, to make
>>>>> review
>>>>>>>>> process
>>>>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> practical.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Documentation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Added code should be
>>>>>> well-documented.
>>>>>>>> Any
>>>>>>>>>>>> methods
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> raise
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regarding their code flow,
>>>>>> invariants,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> synchronization,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc.,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> documented with comprehensive
>>>>>> javadoc.
>>>>>>>> Any
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reviewer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> request
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular added method be
>>>>>> documented.
>>>>>>>>> Also,
>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> practice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> document old code in a 10-20
>>>>> lines
>>>>>>>> region
>>>>>>>>>>> around
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) Logging.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Make sure that there are
>> enough
>>>>>>> logging
>>>>>>>>>> added
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> category
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible diagnostic in field.
>>>>> Check
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> logging
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> messages
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spelled.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4) Metrics.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are there any metrics that
>> need
>>>>> to
>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>> exposed
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5) TC status.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Recheck that there are no new
>>>>>> failing
>>>>>>>>> tests
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6) Refactoring.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The code should be better
>> than
>>>>>> before:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - extract method from big
>>> one;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - do anything else to make
>>>>> code
>>>>>>>> clearer
>>>>>>>>>>>> (don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forget
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   OOP-practise, replace
>>> if-else
>>>>>> hell
>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inheritance
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - split refactoring
>>> (renaming,
>>>>>> code
>>>>>>>>>> format)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   separate commit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:23
>>> PM,
>>>>>>> Eduard
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shangareev <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eduard.shangareev@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, guys.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe that we should
>>> update
>>>>>>>>>> maintainers
>>>>>>>>>>>> list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requirement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There should not be the
>>>>> situation
>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is responsible for a
>>> component.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We already have issues with
>>>>> review
>>>>>>>> speed
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> response
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at
>> 2:17
>>>>> PM,
>>>>>>> Anton
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vinogradov
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> av@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vova,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everything you described
>>>>> sound
>>>>>>> good
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to propose to
>>> create
>>>>>>>> special
>>>>>>>>>> page
>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>> AI
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wiki
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> describe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checklist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In case we'll find
>>> something
>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changed/improved
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> easy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> update the page.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018-04-20 0:53 GMT+03:00
>>>>>> Nikolay
>>>>>>>>>> Izhikov
>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nizhikov@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Vladimir.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for seting up
>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>> discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As we discussed, I
>> think
>>> an
>>>>>>>>> important
>>>>>>>>>>> part
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> check
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compatibility rules.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * What should be
>> backward
>>>>>>>>> compatible?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * How should we
>> maintain
>>>>> it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) If ticket changes
>>>>> public
>>>>>>> API
>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commiters should
>> approve
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can learn from other
>>>>> open
>>>>>>>> source
>>>>>>>>>>>> project
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experience.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apache Kafka [1], for
>>>>> example,
>>>>>>>>>> requires
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> KIP(kafka
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improvement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposal)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for *every* major
>> change.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Major change definition
>>>>>> includes
>>>>>>>>>> public
>>>>>>>>>>>> API.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confluence/display/KAFKA/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>> Kafka+Improvement+Proposals
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> В Чт, 19/04/2018 в
>> 23:00
>>>>>> +0300,
>>>>>>>>>> Vladimir
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ozerov
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пишет:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Igniters,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's glad to see our
>>>>>> community
>>>>>>>>>> becomes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> larger
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> day.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> grows
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> becomes more and more
>>>>>>> difficult
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> manage
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merge
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep quality of our
>>>>>> decisions
>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> proper
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> level.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> More
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributors,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commits, more
>>> components
>>>>>>>>> interlinked
>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subtle
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ways.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would like to
>> propose
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> setup a
>>>>>>>>>>>> formal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checklist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set of actions every
>>>>>> reviewer
>>>>>>>>> needs
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> check
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approving
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merge
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certain feature.
>>> Passing
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> checklist
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *necessary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficient* phase
>>> before
>>>>>>> commit
>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> added
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>> 

Re: Ticket review checklist

[Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>]

Dmitry,

We cannot add this requirements, because we do have failures on TC. This
requirement implies that all development would stop until TC is green.
We never had old requirement work, neither we need to enforce it now.

On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 2:59 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <dp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 3.c
>
>    1. All test suites *MUST* be run on TeamCity [3] before merge to master,
>    there *MUST NOT* be any test failures
>
>
> 'New' word should be removed because we cant separate `new` and `non new`
> failures.
>
> Let's imagine example, we have 50 green runs in master. And PR Run-All
> contains this test failed. Is it new or not new? Actually we don't know.
>
> Existing requirement is about all TC must be green, so let's keep it as is.
>
> ср, 23 мая 2018 г. в 17:02, Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>:
>
> > Igniters,
> >
> > I created review checklist on WIKI [1] and also fixed related pages (e.g.
> > "How To Contribute"). Please let me know if you have any comments before
> I
> > go with public announce.
> >
> > Vladimir.
> >
> > [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Review+Checklist
> >
> > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:10 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Ilya,
> > >
> > > We define that exception messages *SHOULD* have clear explanation on
> what
> > > is wrong. *SHOULD* mean that the rule should be followed unless there
> is
> > a
> > > reason not to follow. In your case you refer to some unexpected
> behavior.
> > > I.e. an exceptional situation developer is not aware of. In this case
> for
> > > sure we cannot force contributor to explain what is wrong, because,
> well,
> > > we don't know. This is why we relaxed the rule from *MUST* to *SHOULD*.
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Ilya Kasnacheev <
> > > ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I don't think I quite understand how exception explanations should
> work.
> > >>
> > >> Imagine we have the following exception:
> > >>
> > >> // At least RuntimeException can be thrown by the code above when
> > >> GridCacheContext is cleaned and there is
> > >> // an attempt to use cleaned resources.
> > >> U.error(log, "Unexpected exception during cache update", e);
> > >>
> > >> I mean, we genuinely don't know what happened here.
> > >>
> > >> Under new rules, what kind of "workaround" would that exception
> suggest?
> > >> "Try turning it off and then back on"?
> > >> What explanation how to resolve this exception can we offer? "Please
> > write
> > >> to dev@apache.ignite.org or to Apache JIRA, and then wait for a
> release
> > >> with fix?"
> > >>
> > >> I'm really confused how we can implement 1.6 and 1.7 when dealing with
> > >> messy real-world code.
> > >>
> > >> Regards,
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Ilya Kasnacheev
> > >>
> > >> 2018-05-10 11:39 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>:
> > >>
> > >> > Andrey, Anton, Alex
> > >> >
> > >> > Agree, *SHOULD* is more appropriate here.
> > >> >
> > >> > Please see latest version below. Does anyone want to add or change
> > >> > something? Let's wait for several days for more feedback and then
> > >> publish
> > >> > and announce this list. Note that it would not be carved in stone
> and
> > we
> > >> > will be able to change it at any time if needed.
> > >> >
> > >> > 1) API
> > >> > 1.1) API compatibility *MUST* be maintained between minor releases.
> Do
> > >> not
> > >> > remove existing methods or change their signatures, deprecate them
> > >> instead
> > >> > 1.2) Default behaviour "SHOULD NOT* be changed between minor
> releases,
> > >> > unless absolutely needed. If change is made, it *MUST* be described
> in
> > >> > "Migration Guide"
> > >> > 1.3) New operation *MUST* be well-documented in code (javadoc,
> > >> dotnetdoc):
> > >> > documentation must contain method's purpose, description of
> parameters
> > >> and
> > >> > how their values affect the outcome, description of return value and
> > >> it's
> > >> > default, behavior in negative cases, interaction with other
> operations
> > >> and
> > >> > components
> > >> > 1.4) API parity between Java and .NET platforms *SHOULD* be
> maintained
> > >> when
> > >> > operation makes sense on both platforms. If method cannot be
> > >> implemented in
> > >> > a platform immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be created and linked
> > to
> > >> > current ticket
> > >> > 1.5) API parity between thin clients (Java, .NET) *SHOULD* be
> > maintained
> > >> > when operation makes sense on several clients. If method cannot be
> > >> > implemented in a client immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be
> created
> > >> and
> > >> > linked to current ticket
> > >> > 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user **SHOULD** have explanation how
> > to
> > >> > resolve, workaround or debug an error
> > >> >
> > >> > 2) Compatibility
> > >> > 2.1) Persistence backward compatibility *MUST* be maintained between
> > >> minor
> > >> > releases. It should be possible to start newer version on data files
> > >> > created by the previous version
> > >> > 2.2) Thin client forward and backward compatibility *SHOULD* be
> > >> maintained
> > >> > between two consecutive minor releases. If compatibility cannot be
> > >> > maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
> > >> > 2.3) JDBC and ODBC forward and backward compatibility *SHOULD* be
> > >> > maintained between two consecutive minor releases. If compatibility
> > >> cannot
> > >> > be maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
> > >> >
> > >> > 3) Tests
> > >> > 3.1) New functionality *MUST* be covered with unit tests for both
> > >> positive
> > >> > and negative use cases
> > >> > 3.2) All test suites *MUST* be run before merge to master..There
> > *MUST*
> > >> be
> > >> > no new test failures
> > >> >
> > >> > 4) Code style *MUST* be followed as per Ignite's Coding Guidelines
> > >> >
> > >> > Vladimir.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 1:05 PM, Andrey Kuznetsov <stkuzma@gmail.com
> >
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Anton,
> > >> > >
> > >> > > I agree, *MUST* for exception reasons and *SHOULD* for ways of
> > >> resolution
> > >> > > sound clearer.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > 2018-05-08 12:56 GMT+03:00 Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > Andrey,
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > How about
> > >> > > > 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user *MUST* have explanation of
> > >> > > workaround
> > >> > > > and contain original error.
> > >> > > > All exceptions thrown to a user *SHOULD* have explanation how to
> > >> > resolve
> > >> > > if
> > >> > > > possible.
> > >> > > > ?
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > вт, 8 мая 2018 г. в 12:26, Andrey Kuznetsov <stkuzma@gmail.com
> >:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > Vladimir, checklist looks pleasant enough for me.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > I'd like to suggest one minor change. In 1.6 *MUST* seems to
> be
> > >> too
> > >> > > > strict,
> > >> > > > > *SHOULD* would be enough. It can be frustrating for API user
> if
> > I
> > >> > > explain
> > >> > > > > how to fix NPEs in a trivial way, for example.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > 2018-05-08 11:34 GMT+03:00 Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Alex,
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > It is not sounds like that, obviously.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Tests should cover all negative and positive cases.
> > >> > > > > > You should add enough tests to cover all cases.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Sometimes one test can cover more than one case, so two
> tests
> > >> *CAN*
> > >> > > > > > partially check same things.
> > >> > > > > > In case some cases already covered you should not create
> > >> > duplicates.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > вт, 8 мая 2018 г. в 10:19, Александр Меньшиков <
> > >> > sharplermc@gmail.com
> > >> > > >:
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > Vladimir, the 3.1 is a bit unclear for me. Which code
> > >> coverage is
> > >> > > > > > > acceptable? Now it sounds like two tests are enough (one
> for
> > >> > > positive
> > >> > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > > one for negative cases).
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > 2018-05-07 23:09 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > >> > > dsetrakyan@apache.org
> > >> > > > >:
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > Is this list on the Wiki?
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 7:26 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > >> > > > > vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > >> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > This is the checklist I have at the moment. Please let
> > me
> > >> > know
> > >> > > if
> > >> > > > > you
> > >> > > > > > > > have
> > >> > > > > > > > > any comments on existing items, or want to add or
> remove
> > >> > > > anything.
> > >> > > > > It
> > >> > > > > > > > looks
> > >> > > > > > > > > like we may have not only strict rules, but *nice to
> > have*
> > >> > > points
> > >> > > > > > here
> > >> > > > > > > as
> > >> > > > > > > > > well with help of *MUST*, *SHOULD* and *MAY* words as
> > per
> > >> > > RFC2119
> > >> > > > > > [1].
> > >> > > > > > > So
> > >> > > > > > > > > please feel free to suggest optional items as well.
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > 1) API
> > >> > > > > > > > > 1.1) API compatibility *MUST* be maintained between
> > minor
> > >> > > > releases.
> > >> > > > > > Do
> > >> > > > > > > > not
> > >> > > > > > > > > remove existing methods or change their signatures,
> > >> deprecate
> > >> > > > them
> > >> > > > > > > > instead
> > >> > > > > > > > > 1.2) Default behaviour "SHOULD NOT* be changed between
> > >> minor
> > >> > > > > > releases,
> > >> > > > > > > > > unless absolutely needed. If change is made, it *MUST*
> > be
> > >> > > > described
> > >> > > > > > in
> > >> > > > > > > > > "Migration Guide"
> > >> > > > > > > > > 1.3) New operation *MUST* be well-documented in code
> > >> > (javadoc,
> > >> > > > > > > > dotnetdoc):
> > >> > > > > > > > > documentation must contain method's purpose,
> description
> > >> of
> > >> > > > > > parameters
> > >> > > > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > > > > how their values affect the outcome, description of
> > return
> > >> > > value
> > >> > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > > it's
> > >> > > > > > > > > default, behavior in negative cases, interaction with
> > >> other
> > >> > > > > > operations
> > >> > > > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > > > > components
> > >> > > > > > > > > 1.4) API parity between Java and .NET platforms
> *SHOULD*
> > >> be
> > >> > > > > > maintained
> > >> > > > > > > > when
> > >> > > > > > > > > operation makes sense on both platforms. If method
> > cannot
> > >> be
> > >> > > > > > > implemented
> > >> > > > > > > > in
> > >> > > > > > > > > a platform immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be
> > created
> > >> and
> > >> > > > > linked
> > >> > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > > > > current ticket
> > >> > > > > > > > > 1.5) API parity between thin clients (Java, .NET)
> > >> *SHOULD* be
> > >> > > > > > > maintained
> > >> > > > > > > > > when operation makes sense on several clients. If
> method
> > >> > cannot
> > >> > > > be
> > >> > > > > > > > > implemented in a client immediately, new JIRA ticket
> > >> *MUST*
> > >> > be
> > >> > > > > > created
> > >> > > > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > > > > linked to current ticket
> > >> > > > > > > > > 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user *MUST* have
> > >> explanation
> > >> > > how
> > >> > > > to
> > >> > > > > > > > > resolve, workaround or debug an error
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > 2) Compatibility
> > >> > > > > > > > > 2.1) Persistence backward compatibility *MUST* be
> > >> maintained
> > >> > > > > between
> > >> > > > > > > > minor
> > >> > > > > > > > > releases. It should be possible to start newer version
> > on
> > >> > data
> > >> > > > > files
> > >> > > > > > > > > created by the previous version
> > >> > > > > > > > > 2.2) Thin client forward and backward compatibility
> > >> *SHOULD*
> > >> > be
> > >> > > > > > > > maintained
> > >> > > > > > > > > between two consecutive minor releases. If
> compatibility
> > >> > cannot
> > >> > > > be
> > >> > > > > > > > > maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
> > >> > > > > > > > > 2.3) JDBC and ODBC forward and backward compatibility
> > >> > *SHOULD*
> > >> > > be
> > >> > > > > > > > > maintained between two consecutive minor releases. If
> > >> > > > compatibility
> > >> > > > > > > > cannot
> > >> > > > > > > > > be maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration
> > Guide"
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > 3) Tests
> > >> > > > > > > > > 3.1) New functionality *MUST* be covered with unit
> tests
> > >> for
> > >> > > both
> > >> > > > > > > > positive
> > >> > > > > > > > > and negative use cases
> > >> > > > > > > > > 3.2) All test suites *MUST* be run before merge to
> > >> > > master..There
> > >> > > > > > *MUST*
> > >> > > > > > > > be
> > >> > > > > > > > > no new test failures
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > 4) Code style *MUST* be followed as per Ignite's
> Coding
> > >> > > > Guidelines
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > Vladimir.
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > [1] https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > >> > > > > > vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > Hi Dmitry,
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > Yes, I'll do that in the nearest days.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <
> > >> > > > > > > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> > >> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> Igniters, the idea was related to small
> refactorings
> > >> > > > co-located
> > >> > > > > > with
> > >> > > > > > > > > main
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> change.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> Main change itself indicates that existing code did
> > not
> > >> > meet
> > >> > > > the
> > >> > > > > > > > > criteria
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> of practice. Approving of standalone refactorings
> > >> instead
> > >> > > > > > > contradicts
> > >> > > > > > > > > with
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> principle don't touch if it works. So I still like
> > >> idea of
> > >> > > > > > > co-located
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> changes improving code, javadocs, style, etc.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> But let's not argue about this point now, let's
> > >> summarize
> > >> > > the
> > >> > > > > > > > undisputed
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> points and add it to the wiki. Vladimir, would you
> > >> please
> > >> > do
> > >> > > > it?
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> ср, 25 апр. 2018 г. в 16:42, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > >> > > > > nizhikov@apache.org
> > >> > > > > > >:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > Igniters,
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > I agree with Vova.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > Don't fix if it works!
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > If you 100% sure then it a useful addition to the
> > >> > product
> > >> > > -
> > >> > > > > just
> > >> > > > > > > > make
> > >> > > > > > > > > a
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > separate ticket.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > В Ср, 25/04/2018 в 11:44 +0300, Vladimir Ozerov
> > >> пишет:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > Guys,
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > The problem with in-place refactorings is that
> > you
> > >> > > > increase
> > >> > > > > > > > affected
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > scope.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > It is not uncommon to break compatibility or
> > public
> > >> > > > > contracts
> > >> > > > > > > with
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> even
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > minor things. E.g. recently we decided drop
> > >> org.jsr166
> > >> > > > > package
> > >> > > > > > > in
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> favor
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > of
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > Java 8 classes. Innocent change. Result -
> broken
> > >> > > storage.
> > >> > > > > > > Another
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> problem
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > is conflicts. It is not uncommon to have
> > long-lived
> > >> > > > branches
> > >> > > > > > > which
> > >> > > > > > > > > we
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > need
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > to merge with master over and over again. And a
> > >> lot of
> > >> > > > > > > > refactorings
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> cause
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > conflicts. It is much easier to resolve them if
> > you
> > >> > know
> > >> > > > > that
> > >> > > > > > > > logic
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> was
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > not
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > affected as opposed to cases when you need to
> > >> resolve
> > >> > > both
> > >> > > > > > > renames
> > >> > > > > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > method extractions along with business-logic
> > >> changes.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > I'd like to repeat - if you have a time for
> > >> > refactoring
> > >> > > > then
> > >> > > > > > you
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > definitely
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > have a time to extract these changes to
> separate
> > PR
> > >> > and
> > >> > > > > > submit a
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> separate
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > ticket. I am quite understand what "low
> priority"
> > >> do
> > >> > you
> > >> > > > > mean
> > >> > > > > > if
> > >> > > > > > > > you
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> do
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > refactorings on your own.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 10:52 PM, Andrey
> > Kuznetsov
> > >> <
> > >> > > > > > > > > stkuzma@gmail.com
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > +1.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > Once again, I beg for "small refactoring
> > >> permission"
> > >> > > in
> > >> > > > a
> > >> > > > > > > > > checklist.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > As of
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > today, separate tickets for small
> refactorings
> > >> has
> > >> > > > lowest
> > >> > > > > > > > > priority,
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > since
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > they neither fix any flaw nor add new
> > >> functionality.
> > >> > > > Also,
> > >> > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > attempts to
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > make issue-related code safer / cleaner /
> more
> > >> > > readable
> > >> > > > in
> > >> > > > > > > > "real"
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> pull
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > requests are typically rejected, since they
> > >> > contradict
> > >> > > > our
> > >> > > > > > > > current
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > guidelines.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > I understand this will require a bit more
> > effort
> > >> > from
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > committer/maintainer,
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > but otherwise we will get constantly
> degrading
> > >> code
> > >> > > > > quality.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > 2018-04-24 18:52 GMT+03:00 Eduard Shangareev
> <
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > :
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Vladimir,
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > I am not talking about
> massive/sophisticated
> > >> > > > > refactoring.
> > >> > > > > > > But
> > >> > > > > > > > I
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > believe
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > that ask to extract some methods should be
> OK
> > >> to
> > >> > do
> > >> > > > > > without
> > >> > > > > > > an
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> extra
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > ticket.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > A checklist shouldn't be necessarily a set
> of
> > >> > > certain
> > >> > > > > > rules
> > >> > > > > > > > but
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> also
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > it
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > could include suggestion and reminders.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 6:39 PM, Vladimir
> > >> Ozerov <
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Ed,
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Refactoring is a separate task. If you
> > would
> > >> > like
> > >> > > to
> > >> > > > > > > rework
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > exchange
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > future
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > - please do this in a ticket "Refactor
> > >> exchange
> > >> > > > task",
> > >> > > > > > > > nobody
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> would
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > against
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > this. This is just a matter of creating
> > >> separate
> > >> > > > > ticket
> > >> > > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > separate
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > PR.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > If
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > one have a time for refactoring, it
> should
> > >> not
> > >> > be
> > >> > > a
> > >> > > > > > > problem
> > >> > > > > > > > > for
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > him to
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > spend several minutes on JIRA and GitHub.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > As far as documentation - what you
> describe
> > >> is
> > >> > > > normal
> > >> > > > > > > review
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > process,
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > when
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > reviewer might want to ask contributor to
> > fix
> > >> > > > > something.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> Checklist
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > is a
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > different thing - this is a set of rules
> > >> which
> > >> > > must
> > >> > > > be
> > >> > > > > > > > > followed
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> by
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > anyone.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > I do not understand how you can define
> > >> > > documentation
> > >> > > > > in
> > >> > > > > > > this
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > checklist.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Same problem with logging - what is
> > "enough"?
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Eduard
> > >> > > Shangareev <
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Igniters,
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I don't understand why you are so
> against
> > >> > > > > refactoring.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Code already smells like hell. Methods
> > 200+
> > >> > line
> > >> > > > is
> > >> > > > > > > > normal.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > Exchange
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > future
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > is asking to be separated on several
> one.
> > >> > > > > Transaction
> > >> > > > > > > code
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> could
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > understand
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > few people.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > If we separate refactoring from
> > >> development it
> > >> > > > would
> > >> > > > > > > mean
> > >> > > > > > > > > that
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > no one
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > will
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > do it.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > 2) Documentation.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Everything which was asked by reviewers
> > to
> > >> > > clarify
> > >> > > > > > idea
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> should be
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > reflected
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > in the code.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > 3) Logging.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Logging should be enough to
> troubleshoot
> > >> the
> > >> > > > problem
> > >> > > > > > if
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> someone
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > comes
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > user-list with an issue in the code.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 7:06 PM, Dmitry
> > >> > Pavlov <
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > +1 to idea of checklist.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > +1 to refactoring and documenting
> code
> > >> > related
> > >> > > > to
> > >> > > > > > > ticket
> > >> > > > > > > > > in
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > +/-20
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > LOC
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > at
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > least.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > If we start to do it as part of our
> > >> regular
> > >> > > > > > > > contribution,
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> code
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > will
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > be
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > better, it would became common
> practice
> > >> and
> > >> > > part
> > >> > > > > of
> > >> > > > > > > > Apache
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > Ignite
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > development culure.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > If we will hope we will have free
> time
> > to
> > >> > > submit
> > >> > > > > > > > separate
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> patch
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > someday
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > have patience to complete
> > >> patch-submission
> > >> > > > > process,
> > >> > > > > > > code
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> will
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > remain
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > undocumented and poor-readable.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Sincerely,
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > пт, 20 апр. 2018 г. в 18:56,
> Александр
> > >> > > > Меньшиков <
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > sharplermc@gmail.com
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > :
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 4) Metrics.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > partially +1
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > It makes sense to have some minimal
> > >> code
> > >> > > > > coverage
> > >> > > > > > > for
> > >> > > > > > > > > new
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > code in
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > PR.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IMHO.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Also, we can limit the cyclomatic
> > >> > complexity
> > >> > > > of
> > >> > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > > > new
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> code
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > in
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > PR
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > too.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 6) Refactoring
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > -1
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > I understand why people want to
> > >> refactor
> > >> > old
> > >> > > > > code.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > But I think refactoring should be
> > >> always a
> > >> > > > > > separate
> > >> > > > > > > > > task.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > And it's better to remove all
> > >> refactoring
> > >> > > from
> > >> > > > > PR,
> > >> > > > > > > if
> > >> > > > > > > > > it's
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > not
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > the
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > sense
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > of
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > the issue.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 16:54 GMT+03:00 Andrey
> > >> > Kuznetsov
> > >> > > <
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > stkuzma@gmail.com>:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > What about adding the following
> > item
> > >> to
> > >> > > the
> > >> > > > > > > > checklist:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > when the
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > change
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > adds
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > new functionality, then unit
> tests
> > >> > should
> > >> > > > also
> > >> > > > > > be
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > provided, if
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > it's
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > technically possible?
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > As for refactorings, in fact they
> > are
> > >> > > > strongly
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> discouraged
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > today
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > for
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > some
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > unclear reason. Let's permit to
> > make
> > >> > > > > > refactorings
> > >> > > > > > > in
> > >> > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > checklist
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > being
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > discussed. (Of cource,
> refactoring
> > >> > should
> > >> > > > > relate
> > >> > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> problem
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > being
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > solved.)
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 16:16 GMT+03:00
> Vladimir
> > >> > > Ozerov <
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > vozerov@gridgain.com
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > :
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ed,
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately some of these
> > points
> > >> are
> > >> > > not
> > >> > > > > > good
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > candidates
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > for
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > checklist because of these:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > - It must be clear and disallow
> > >> > > *multiple
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > interpretations*
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > - It must be *lightweight*,
> > >> otherwise
> > >> > > > Ignite
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> development
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > would
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > become a
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > nightmare
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > We cannot have "nice to have"
> > >> points
> > >> > > here.
> > >> > > > > > > > Checklist
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > should
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > answer
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > question "is ticket eligible to
> > be
> > >> > > > merged?"
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Code style.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > +1
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  2) Documentation
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -1, it is impossible to define
> > >> what is
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > "well-documented". A
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > piece
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > of
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > code
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > could be obvious for one
> > >> contributor,
> > >> > > and
> > >> > > > > > > > > non-obvious
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> for
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > another.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > In
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > any
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > case this is not a blocker for
> > >> merge.
> > >> > > > > Instead,
> > >> > > > > > > > > during
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > review
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > one
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > can
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > ask
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > implementer to add more docs,
> but
> > >> it
> > >> > > > cannot
> > >> > > > > be
> > >> > > > > > > > > forced.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  3) Logging
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -1, same problem - what is
> > "enough
> > >> > > > > logging?".
> > >> > > > > > > > Enough
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> for
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > whom?
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > How
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > understand whether it is enough
> > or
> > >> > not?
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  4) Metrics
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -1, no clear boundaries, and
> > >> decision
> > >> > on
> > >> > > > > > whether
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> metrics
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > are
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > to
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > be
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > added
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > or
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > not should be performed during
> > >> design
> > >> > > > phase.
> > >> > > > > > As
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> before,
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > it is
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > perfectly
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > valid to ask contributor to add
> > >> > metrics
> > >> > > > with
> > >> > > > > > > clear
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > explanation
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > why,
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > but
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > this is not part of the
> > checklist.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5) TC status
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > +1, already mentioned
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  6) Refactoring
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Strong -1. OOP is a slippery
> > slope,
> > >> > > there
> > >> > > > > are
> > >> > > > > > no
> > >> > > > > > > > > good
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > and bad
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > receipts
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > for
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > all cases, hence it cannot be
> > used
> > >> in
> > >> > a
> > >> > > > > > > checklist.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > We can borrow useful rules from
> > >> p.2,
> > >> > p.3
> > >> > > > and
> > >> > > > > > p.4
> > >> > > > > > > > if
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> you
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > provide
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > clear
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > definitions on how to measure
> > them.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Vladimir.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:50
> PM,
> > >> > Eduard
> > >> > > > > > > > Shangareev <
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Also, I want to add some
> > >> technical
> > >> > > > > > > requirement.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> Let's
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > discuss
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > them.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Code style.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The code needs to be
> formatted
> > >> > > according
> > >> > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > > > coding
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > guidelines
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/
> > >> > > > > > confluence/display/IGNITE/
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Coding+Guidelines
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > .
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > code must not contain TODOs
> > >> without
> > >> > a
> > >> > > > > ticket
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> reference.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > It is highly recommended to
> > make
> > >> > major
> > >> > > > > > > > formatting
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > changes
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > in
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > existing
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > code
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > as a separate commit, to make
> > >> review
> > >> > > > > process
> > >> > > > > > > > more
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > practical.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Documentation.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Added code should be
> > >> > well-documented.
> > >> > > > Any
> > >> > > > > > > > methods
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> that
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > raise
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > questions
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > regarding their code flow,
> > >> > invariants,
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> synchronization,
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > etc.,
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > must
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > be
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > documented with comprehensive
> > >> > javadoc.
> > >> > > > Any
> > >> > > > > > > > > reviewer
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> can
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > request
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > that
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > a
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > particular added method be
> > >> > documented.
> > >> > > > > Also,
> > >> > > > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > > > > is a
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > good
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > practice
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > document old code in a 10-20
> > >> lines
> > >> > > > region
> > >> > > > > > > around
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > changed
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > code.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 3) Logging.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Make sure that there are
> enough
> > >> > > logging
> > >> > > > > > added
> > >> > > > > > > in
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> every
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > category
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > for
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > possible diagnostic in field.
> > >> Check
> > >> > > that
> > >> > > > > > > logging
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > messages
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > are
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > properly
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > spelled.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 4) Metrics.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Are there any metrics that
> need
> > >> to
> > >> > be
> > >> > > > > > exposed
> > >> > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> user?
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 5) TC status.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Recheck that there are no new
> > >> > failing
> > >> > > > > tests
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 6) Refactoring.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The code should be better
> than
> > >> > before:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - extract method from big
> > one;
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - do anything else to make
> > >> code
> > >> > > > clearer
> > >> > > > > > > > (don't
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > forget
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > about
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > some
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    OOP-practise, replace
> > if-else
> > >> > hell
> > >> > > > with
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> inheritance
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - split refactoring
> > (renaming,
> > >> > code
> > >> > > > > > format)
> > >> > > > > > > > > from
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > actual
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > changes
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > by
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    separate commit
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:23
> > PM,
> > >> > > Eduard
> > >> > > > > > > > > Shangareev <
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, guys.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that we should
> > update
> > >> > > > > > maintainers
> > >> > > > > > > > list
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > before
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > adding
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > this
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > review
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > requirement.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > There should not be the
> > >> situation
> > >> > > when
> > >> > > > > > there
> > >> > > > > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> only
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > one
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > contributor
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > who
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > is responsible for a
> > component.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > We already have issues with
> > >> review
> > >> > > > speed
> > >> > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> response
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > time.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at
> 2:17
> > >> PM,
> > >> > > Anton
> > >> > > > > > > > > Vinogradov
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> <
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vova,
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Everything you described
> > >> sound
> > >> > > good
> > >> > > > to
> > >> > > > > > me.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to propose to
> > create
> > >> > > > special
> > >> > > > > > page
> > >> > > > > > > > at
> > >> > > > > > > > > AI
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > Wiki
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > and
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > describe
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > checklist.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case we'll find
> > something
> > >> > > should
> > >> > > > be
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > changed/improved
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > it
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > will
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > be
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > update the page.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 0:53 GMT+03:00
> > >> > Nikolay
> > >> > > > > > Izhikov
> > >> > > > > > > <
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > nizhikov@apache.org
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > :
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Vladimir.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for seting up
> > >> this
> > >> > > > > > discussion.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As we discussed, I
> think
> > an
> > >> > > > > important
> > >> > > > > > > part
> > >> > > > > > > > > of
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > this
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > check
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > list
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > compatibility rules.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * What should be
> backward
> > >> > > > > compatible?
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * How should we
> maintain
> > >> it?
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) If ticket changes
> > >> public
> > >> > > API
> > >> > > > or
> > >> > > > > > > > > existing
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > behavior,
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > at
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > least
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > two
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commiters should
> approve
> > >> the
> > >> > > > changes
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can learn from other
> > >> open
> > >> > > > source
> > >> > > > > > > > project
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > experience.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Apache Kafka [1], for
> > >> example,
> > >> > > > > > requires
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> KIP(kafka
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > improvement
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > proposal)
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for *every* major
> change.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Major change definition
> > >> > includes
> > >> > > > > > public
> > >> > > > > > > > API.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > confluence/display/KAFKA/
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > Kafka+Improvement+Proposals
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > В Чт, 19/04/2018 в
> 23:00
> > >> > +0300,
> > >> > > > > > Vladimir
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> Ozerov
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > пишет:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's glad to see our
> > >> > community
> > >> > > > > > becomes
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> larger
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > every
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > day.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > But
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > as
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > grows
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes more and more
> > >> > > difficult
> > >> > > > to
> > >> > > > > > > > manage
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > review and
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > merge
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > processes
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > keep quality of our
> > >> > decisions
> > >> > > at
> > >> > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > > > > proper
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > level.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > More
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > contributors,
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commits, more
> > components
> > >> > > > > interlinked
> > >> > > > > > > > with
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> each
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > other
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > in
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > subtle
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > ways.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to
> propose
> > >> to
> > >> > > > setup a
> > >> > > > > > > > formal
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > review
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > checklist.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > This
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be a
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > set of actions every
> > >> > reviewer
> > >> > > > > needs
> > >> > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > > > > check
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > before
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > approving
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > merge
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of a
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > certain feature.
> > Passing
> > >> the
> > >> > > > > > checklist
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> would be
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > *necessary
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > but
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > not
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sufficient* phase
> > before
> > >> > > commit
> > >> > > > > > could
> > >> > > > > > > be
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> added
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > to
> > >> > > > > > > >
>

Re: Ticket review checklist

[Dmitry Pavlov <dp...@gmail.com>]

3.c

   1. All test suites *MUST* be run on TeamCity [3] before merge to master,
   there *MUST NOT* be any test failures


'New' word should be removed because we cant separate `new` and `non new`
failures.

Let's imagine example, we have 50 green runs in master. And PR Run-All
contains this test failed. Is it new or not new? Actually we don't know.

Existing requirement is about all TC must be green, so let's keep it as is.

ср, 23 мая 2018 г. в 17:02, Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>:

> Igniters,
>
> I created review checklist on WIKI [1] and also fixed related pages (e.g.
> "How To Contribute"). Please let me know if you have any comments before I
> go with public announce.
>
> Vladimir.
>
> [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Review+Checklist
>
> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:10 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Ilya,
> >
> > We define that exception messages *SHOULD* have clear explanation on what
> > is wrong. *SHOULD* mean that the rule should be followed unless there is
> a
> > reason not to follow. In your case you refer to some unexpected behavior.
> > I.e. an exceptional situation developer is not aware of. In this case for
> > sure we cannot force contributor to explain what is wrong, because, well,
> > we don't know. This is why we relaxed the rule from *MUST* to *SHOULD*.
> >
> > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Ilya Kasnacheev <
> > ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I don't think I quite understand how exception explanations should work.
> >>
> >> Imagine we have the following exception:
> >>
> >> // At least RuntimeException can be thrown by the code above when
> >> GridCacheContext is cleaned and there is
> >> // an attempt to use cleaned resources.
> >> U.error(log, "Unexpected exception during cache update", e);
> >>
> >> I mean, we genuinely don't know what happened here.
> >>
> >> Under new rules, what kind of "workaround" would that exception suggest?
> >> "Try turning it off and then back on"?
> >> What explanation how to resolve this exception can we offer? "Please
> write
> >> to dev@apache.ignite.org or to Apache JIRA, and then wait for a release
> >> with fix?"
> >>
> >> I'm really confused how we can implement 1.6 and 1.7 when dealing with
> >> messy real-world code.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Ilya Kasnacheev
> >>
> >> 2018-05-10 11:39 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>:
> >>
> >> > Andrey, Anton, Alex
> >> >
> >> > Agree, *SHOULD* is more appropriate here.
> >> >
> >> > Please see latest version below. Does anyone want to add or change
> >> > something? Let's wait for several days for more feedback and then
> >> publish
> >> > and announce this list. Note that it would not be carved in stone and
> we
> >> > will be able to change it at any time if needed.
> >> >
> >> > 1) API
> >> > 1.1) API compatibility *MUST* be maintained between minor releases. Do
> >> not
> >> > remove existing methods or change their signatures, deprecate them
> >> instead
> >> > 1.2) Default behaviour "SHOULD NOT* be changed between minor releases,
> >> > unless absolutely needed. If change is made, it *MUST* be described in
> >> > "Migration Guide"
> >> > 1.3) New operation *MUST* be well-documented in code (javadoc,
> >> dotnetdoc):
> >> > documentation must contain method's purpose, description of parameters
> >> and
> >> > how their values affect the outcome, description of return value and
> >> it's
> >> > default, behavior in negative cases, interaction with other operations
> >> and
> >> > components
> >> > 1.4) API parity between Java and .NET platforms *SHOULD* be maintained
> >> when
> >> > operation makes sense on both platforms. If method cannot be
> >> implemented in
> >> > a platform immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be created and linked
> to
> >> > current ticket
> >> > 1.5) API parity between thin clients (Java, .NET) *SHOULD* be
> maintained
> >> > when operation makes sense on several clients. If method cannot be
> >> > implemented in a client immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be created
> >> and
> >> > linked to current ticket
> >> > 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user **SHOULD** have explanation how
> to
> >> > resolve, workaround or debug an error
> >> >
> >> > 2) Compatibility
> >> > 2.1) Persistence backward compatibility *MUST* be maintained between
> >> minor
> >> > releases. It should be possible to start newer version on data files
> >> > created by the previous version
> >> > 2.2) Thin client forward and backward compatibility *SHOULD* be
> >> maintained
> >> > between two consecutive minor releases. If compatibility cannot be
> >> > maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
> >> > 2.3) JDBC and ODBC forward and backward compatibility *SHOULD* be
> >> > maintained between two consecutive minor releases. If compatibility
> >> cannot
> >> > be maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
> >> >
> >> > 3) Tests
> >> > 3.1) New functionality *MUST* be covered with unit tests for both
> >> positive
> >> > and negative use cases
> >> > 3.2) All test suites *MUST* be run before merge to master..There
> *MUST*
> >> be
> >> > no new test failures
> >> >
> >> > 4) Code style *MUST* be followed as per Ignite's Coding Guidelines
> >> >
> >> > Vladimir.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 1:05 PM, Andrey Kuznetsov <st...@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Anton,
> >> > >
> >> > > I agree, *MUST* for exception reasons and *SHOULD* for ways of
> >> resolution
> >> > > sound clearer.
> >> > >
> >> > > 2018-05-08 12:56 GMT+03:00 Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Andrey,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > How about
> >> > > > 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user *MUST* have explanation of
> >> > > workaround
> >> > > > and contain original error.
> >> > > > All exceptions thrown to a user *SHOULD* have explanation how to
> >> > resolve
> >> > > if
> >> > > > possible.
> >> > > > ?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > вт, 8 мая 2018 г. в 12:26, Andrey Kuznetsov <st...@gmail.com>:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > Vladimir, checklist looks pleasant enough for me.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > I'd like to suggest one minor change. In 1.6 *MUST* seems to be
> >> too
> >> > > > strict,
> >> > > > > *SHOULD* would be enough. It can be frustrating for API user if
> I
> >> > > explain
> >> > > > > how to fix NPEs in a trivial way, for example.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > 2018-05-08 11:34 GMT+03:00 Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > Alex,
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > It is not sounds like that, obviously.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Tests should cover all negative and positive cases.
> >> > > > > > You should add enough tests to cover all cases.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Sometimes one test can cover more than one case, so two tests
> >> *CAN*
> >> > > > > > partially check same things.
> >> > > > > > In case some cases already covered you should not create
> >> > duplicates.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > вт, 8 мая 2018 г. в 10:19, Александр Меньшиков <
> >> > sharplermc@gmail.com
> >> > > >:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Vladimir, the 3.1 is a bit unclear for me. Which code
> >> coverage is
> >> > > > > > > acceptable? Now it sounds like two tests are enough (one for
> >> > > positive
> >> > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > one for negative cases).
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > 2018-05-07 23:09 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> >> > > dsetrakyan@apache.org
> >> > > > >:
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > Is this list on the Wiki?
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 7:26 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> >> > > > > vozerov@gridgain.com>
> >> > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > This is the checklist I have at the moment. Please let
> me
> >> > know
> >> > > if
> >> > > > > you
> >> > > > > > > > have
> >> > > > > > > > > any comments on existing items, or want to add or remove
> >> > > > anything.
> >> > > > > It
> >> > > > > > > > looks
> >> > > > > > > > > like we may have not only strict rules, but *nice to
> have*
> >> > > points
> >> > > > > > here
> >> > > > > > > as
> >> > > > > > > > > well with help of *MUST*, *SHOULD* and *MAY* words as
> per
> >> > > RFC2119
> >> > > > > > [1].
> >> > > > > > > So
> >> > > > > > > > > please feel free to suggest optional items as well.
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > 1) API
> >> > > > > > > > > 1.1) API compatibility *MUST* be maintained between
> minor
> >> > > > releases.
> >> > > > > > Do
> >> > > > > > > > not
> >> > > > > > > > > remove existing methods or change their signatures,
> >> deprecate
> >> > > > them
> >> > > > > > > > instead
> >> > > > > > > > > 1.2) Default behaviour "SHOULD NOT* be changed between
> >> minor
> >> > > > > > releases,
> >> > > > > > > > > unless absolutely needed. If change is made, it *MUST*
> be
> >> > > > described
> >> > > > > > in
> >> > > > > > > > > "Migration Guide"
> >> > > > > > > > > 1.3) New operation *MUST* be well-documented in code
> >> > (javadoc,
> >> > > > > > > > dotnetdoc):
> >> > > > > > > > > documentation must contain method's purpose, description
> >> of
> >> > > > > > parameters
> >> > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > how their values affect the outcome, description of
> return
> >> > > value
> >> > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > it's
> >> > > > > > > > > default, behavior in negative cases, interaction with
> >> other
> >> > > > > > operations
> >> > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > components
> >> > > > > > > > > 1.4) API parity between Java and .NET platforms *SHOULD*
> >> be
> >> > > > > > maintained
> >> > > > > > > > when
> >> > > > > > > > > operation makes sense on both platforms. If method
> cannot
> >> be
> >> > > > > > > implemented
> >> > > > > > > > in
> >> > > > > > > > > a platform immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be
> created
> >> and
> >> > > > > linked
> >> > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > current ticket
> >> > > > > > > > > 1.5) API parity between thin clients (Java, .NET)
> >> *SHOULD* be
> >> > > > > > > maintained
> >> > > > > > > > > when operation makes sense on several clients. If method
> >> > cannot
> >> > > > be
> >> > > > > > > > > implemented in a client immediately, new JIRA ticket
> >> *MUST*
> >> > be
> >> > > > > > created
> >> > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > linked to current ticket
> >> > > > > > > > > 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user *MUST* have
> >> explanation
> >> > > how
> >> > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > resolve, workaround or debug an error
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > 2) Compatibility
> >> > > > > > > > > 2.1) Persistence backward compatibility *MUST* be
> >> maintained
> >> > > > > between
> >> > > > > > > > minor
> >> > > > > > > > > releases. It should be possible to start newer version
> on
> >> > data
> >> > > > > files
> >> > > > > > > > > created by the previous version
> >> > > > > > > > > 2.2) Thin client forward and backward compatibility
> >> *SHOULD*
> >> > be
> >> > > > > > > > maintained
> >> > > > > > > > > between two consecutive minor releases. If compatibility
> >> > cannot
> >> > > > be
> >> > > > > > > > > maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
> >> > > > > > > > > 2.3) JDBC and ODBC forward and backward compatibility
> >> > *SHOULD*
> >> > > be
> >> > > > > > > > > maintained between two consecutive minor releases. If
> >> > > > compatibility
> >> > > > > > > > cannot
> >> > > > > > > > > be maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration
> Guide"
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > 3) Tests
> >> > > > > > > > > 3.1) New functionality *MUST* be covered with unit tests
> >> for
> >> > > both
> >> > > > > > > > positive
> >> > > > > > > > > and negative use cases
> >> > > > > > > > > 3.2) All test suites *MUST* be run before merge to
> >> > > master..There
> >> > > > > > *MUST*
> >> > > > > > > > be
> >> > > > > > > > > no new test failures
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > 4) Code style *MUST* be followed as per Ignite's Coding
> >> > > > Guidelines
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > Vladimir.
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > [1] https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> >> > > > > > vozerov@gridgain.com>
> >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > Hi Dmitry,
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > Yes, I'll do that in the nearest days.
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <
> >> > > > > > > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> Igniters, the idea was related to small refactorings
> >> > > > co-located
> >> > > > > > with
> >> > > > > > > > > main
> >> > > > > > > > > >> change.
> >> > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > >> Main change itself indicates that existing code did
> not
> >> > meet
> >> > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > criteria
> >> > > > > > > > > >> of practice. Approving of standalone refactorings
> >> instead
> >> > > > > > > contradicts
> >> > > > > > > > > with
> >> > > > > > > > > >> principle don't touch if it works. So I still like
> >> idea of
> >> > > > > > > co-located
> >> > > > > > > > > >> changes improving code, javadocs, style, etc.
> >> > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > >> But let's not argue about this point now, let's
> >> summarize
> >> > > the
> >> > > > > > > > undisputed
> >> > > > > > > > > >> points and add it to the wiki. Vladimir, would you
> >> please
> >> > do
> >> > > > it?
> >> > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > >> ср, 25 апр. 2018 г. в 16:42, Nikolay Izhikov <
> >> > > > > nizhikov@apache.org
> >> > > > > > >:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > Igniters,
> >> > > > > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > I agree with Vova.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > Don't fix if it works!
> >> > > > > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > If you 100% sure then it a useful addition to the
> >> > product
> >> > > -
> >> > > > > just
> >> > > > > > > > make
> >> > > > > > > > > a
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > separate ticket.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > В Ср, 25/04/2018 в 11:44 +0300, Vladimir Ozerov
> >> пишет:
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > Guys,
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > The problem with in-place refactorings is that
> you
> >> > > > increase
> >> > > > > > > > affected
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > scope.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > It is not uncommon to break compatibility or
> public
> >> > > > > contracts
> >> > > > > > > with
> >> > > > > > > > > >> even
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > minor things. E.g. recently we decided drop
> >> org.jsr166
> >> > > > > package
> >> > > > > > > in
> >> > > > > > > > > >> favor
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > of
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > Java 8 classes. Innocent change. Result - broken
> >> > > storage.
> >> > > > > > > Another
> >> > > > > > > > > >> problem
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > is conflicts. It is not uncommon to have
> long-lived
> >> > > > branches
> >> > > > > > > which
> >> > > > > > > > > we
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > need
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > to merge with master over and over again. And a
> >> lot of
> >> > > > > > > > refactorings
> >> > > > > > > > > >> cause
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > conflicts. It is much easier to resolve them if
> you
> >> > know
> >> > > > > that
> >> > > > > > > > logic
> >> > > > > > > > > >> was
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > not
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > affected as opposed to cases when you need to
> >> resolve
> >> > > both
> >> > > > > > > renames
> >> > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > method extractions along with business-logic
> >> changes.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > I'd like to repeat - if you have a time for
> >> > refactoring
> >> > > > then
> >> > > > > > you
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > definitely
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > have a time to extract these changes to separate
> PR
> >> > and
> >> > > > > > submit a
> >> > > > > > > > > >> separate
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > ticket. I am quite understand what "low priority"
> >> do
> >> > you
> >> > > > > mean
> >> > > > > > if
> >> > > > > > > > you
> >> > > > > > > > > >> do
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > refactorings on your own.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 10:52 PM, Andrey
> Kuznetsov
> >> <
> >> > > > > > > > > stkuzma@gmail.com
> >> > > > > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > +1.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > Once again, I beg for "small refactoring
> >> permission"
> >> > > in
> >> > > > a
> >> > > > > > > > > checklist.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > As of
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > today, separate tickets for small refactorings
> >> has
> >> > > > lowest
> >> > > > > > > > > priority,
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > since
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > they neither fix any flaw nor add new
> >> functionality.
> >> > > > Also,
> >> > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > attempts to
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > make issue-related code safer / cleaner / more
> >> > > readable
> >> > > > in
> >> > > > > > > > "real"
> >> > > > > > > > > >> pull
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > requests are typically rejected, since they
> >> > contradict
> >> > > > our
> >> > > > > > > > current
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > guidelines.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > I understand this will require a bit more
> effort
> >> > from
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > committer/maintainer,
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > but otherwise we will get constantly degrading
> >> code
> >> > > > > quality.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > 2018-04-24 18:52 GMT+03:00 Eduard Shangareev <
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > :
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Vladimir,
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > I am not talking about massive/sophisticated
> >> > > > > refactoring.
> >> > > > > > > But
> >> > > > > > > > I
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > believe
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > that ask to extract some methods should be OK
> >> to
> >> > do
> >> > > > > > without
> >> > > > > > > an
> >> > > > > > > > > >> extra
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > ticket.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > A checklist shouldn't be necessarily a set of
> >> > > certain
> >> > > > > > rules
> >> > > > > > > > but
> >> > > > > > > > > >> also
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > it
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > could include suggestion and reminders.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 6:39 PM, Vladimir
> >> Ozerov <
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > vozerov@gridgain.com>
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Ed,
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Refactoring is a separate task. If you
> would
> >> > like
> >> > > to
> >> > > > > > > rework
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > exchange
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > future
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > - please do this in a ticket "Refactor
> >> exchange
> >> > > > task",
> >> > > > > > > > nobody
> >> > > > > > > > > >> would
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > against
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > this. This is just a matter of creating
> >> separate
> >> > > > > ticket
> >> > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > separate
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > PR.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > If
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > one have a time for refactoring, it should
> >> not
> >> > be
> >> > > a
> >> > > > > > > problem
> >> > > > > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > him to
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > spend several minutes on JIRA and GitHub.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > As far as documentation - what you describe
> >> is
> >> > > > normal
> >> > > > > > > review
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > process,
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > when
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > reviewer might want to ask contributor to
> fix
> >> > > > > something.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> Checklist
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > is a
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > different thing - this is a set of rules
> >> which
> >> > > must
> >> > > > be
> >> > > > > > > > > followed
> >> > > > > > > > > >> by
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > anyone.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > I do not understand how you can define
> >> > > documentation
> >> > > > > in
> >> > > > > > > this
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > checklist.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Same problem with logging - what is
> "enough"?
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Eduard
> >> > > Shangareev <
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Igniters,
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I don't understand why you are so against
> >> > > > > refactoring.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Code already smells like hell. Methods
> 200+
> >> > line
> >> > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > normal.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > Exchange
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > future
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > is asking to be separated on several one.
> >> > > > > Transaction
> >> > > > > > > code
> >> > > > > > > > > >> could
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > understand
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > few people.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > If we separate refactoring from
> >> development it
> >> > > > would
> >> > > > > > > mean
> >> > > > > > > > > that
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > no one
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > will
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > do it.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > 2) Documentation.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Everything which was asked by reviewers
> to
> >> > > clarify
> >> > > > > > idea
> >> > > > > > > > > >> should be
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > reflected
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > in the code.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > 3) Logging.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Logging should be enough to troubleshoot
> >> the
> >> > > > problem
> >> > > > > > if
> >> > > > > > > > > >> someone
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > comes
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > user-list with an issue in the code.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 7:06 PM, Dmitry
> >> > Pavlov <
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > +1 to idea of checklist.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > +1 to refactoring and documenting code
> >> > related
> >> > > > to
> >> > > > > > > ticket
> >> > > > > > > > > in
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > +/-20
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > LOC
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > at
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > least.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > If we start to do it as part of our
> >> regular
> >> > > > > > > > contribution,
> >> > > > > > > > > >> code
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > will
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > be
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > better, it would became common practice
> >> and
> >> > > part
> >> > > > > of
> >> > > > > > > > Apache
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > Ignite
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > development culure.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > If we will hope we will have free time
> to
> >> > > submit
> >> > > > > > > > separate
> >> > > > > > > > > >> patch
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > someday
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > have patience to complete
> >> patch-submission
> >> > > > > process,
> >> > > > > > > code
> >> > > > > > > > > >> will
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > remain
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > undocumented and poor-readable.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Sincerely,
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > пт, 20 апр. 2018 г. в 18:56, Александр
> >> > > > Меньшиков <
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > sharplermc@gmail.com
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > :
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 4) Metrics.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > partially +1
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > It makes sense to have some minimal
> >> code
> >> > > > > coverage
> >> > > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > > > > new
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > code in
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > PR.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IMHO.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Also, we can limit the cyclomatic
> >> > complexity
> >> > > > of
> >> > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > new
> >> > > > > > > > > >> code
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > in
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > PR
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > too.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 6) Refactoring
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > -1
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > I understand why people want to
> >> refactor
> >> > old
> >> > > > > code.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > But I think refactoring should be
> >> always a
> >> > > > > > separate
> >> > > > > > > > > task.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > And it's better to remove all
> >> refactoring
> >> > > from
> >> > > > > PR,
> >> > > > > > > if
> >> > > > > > > > > it's
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > not
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > sense
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > of
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > the issue.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 16:54 GMT+03:00 Andrey
> >> > Kuznetsov
> >> > > <
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > stkuzma@gmail.com>:
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > What about adding the following
> item
> >> to
> >> > > the
> >> > > > > > > > checklist:
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > when the
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > change
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > adds
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > new functionality, then unit tests
> >> > should
> >> > > > also
> >> > > > > > be
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > provided, if
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > it's
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > technically possible?
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > As for refactorings, in fact they
> are
> >> > > > strongly
> >> > > > > > > > > >> discouraged
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > today
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > some
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > unclear reason. Let's permit to
> make
> >> > > > > > refactorings
> >> > > > > > > in
> >> > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > checklist
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > being
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > discussed. (Of cource, refactoring
> >> > should
> >> > > > > relate
> >> > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > >> problem
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > being
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > solved.)
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 16:16 GMT+03:00 Vladimir
> >> > > Ozerov <
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > vozerov@gridgain.com
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > :
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ed,
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately some of these
> points
> >> are
> >> > > not
> >> > > > > > good
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > candidates
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > for
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > checklist because of these:
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > - It must be clear and disallow
> >> > > *multiple
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > interpretations*
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > - It must be *lightweight*,
> >> otherwise
> >> > > > Ignite
> >> > > > > > > > > >> development
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > would
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > become a
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > nightmare
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > We cannot have "nice to have"
> >> points
> >> > > here.
> >> > > > > > > > Checklist
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > should
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > answer
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > question "is ticket eligible to
> be
> >> > > > merged?"
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Code style.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > +1
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  2) Documentation
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -1, it is impossible to define
> >> what is
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > "well-documented". A
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > piece
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > of
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > code
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > could be obvious for one
> >> contributor,
> >> > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > non-obvious
> >> > > > > > > > > >> for
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > another.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > In
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > any
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > case this is not a blocker for
> >> merge.
> >> > > > > Instead,
> >> > > > > > > > > during
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > review
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > one
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > can
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > ask
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > implementer to add more docs, but
> >> it
> >> > > > cannot
> >> > > > > be
> >> > > > > > > > > forced.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  3) Logging
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -1, same problem - what is
> "enough
> >> > > > > logging?".
> >> > > > > > > > Enough
> >> > > > > > > > > >> for
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > whom?
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > How
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > understand whether it is enough
> or
> >> > not?
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  4) Metrics
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -1, no clear boundaries, and
> >> decision
> >> > on
> >> > > > > > whether
> >> > > > > > > > > >> metrics
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > are
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > be
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > added
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > or
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > not should be performed during
> >> design
> >> > > > phase.
> >> > > > > > As
> >> > > > > > > > > >> before,
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > it is
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > perfectly
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > valid to ask contributor to add
> >> > metrics
> >> > > > with
> >> > > > > > > clear
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > explanation
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > why,
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > but
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > this is not part of the
> checklist.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5) TC status
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > +1, already mentioned
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  6) Refactoring
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Strong -1. OOP is a slippery
> slope,
> >> > > there
> >> > > > > are
> >> > > > > > no
> >> > > > > > > > > good
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > and bad
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > receipts
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > all cases, hence it cannot be
> used
> >> in
> >> > a
> >> > > > > > > checklist.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > We can borrow useful rules from
> >> p.2,
> >> > p.3
> >> > > > and
> >> > > > > > p.4
> >> > > > > > > > if
> >> > > > > > > > > >> you
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > provide
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > clear
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > definitions on how to measure
> them.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Vladimir.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:50 PM,
> >> > Eduard
> >> > > > > > > > Shangareev <
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Also, I want to add some
> >> technical
> >> > > > > > > requirement.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> Let's
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > discuss
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > them.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Code style.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The code needs to be formatted
> >> > > according
> >> > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > coding
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > guidelines
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/
> >> > > > > > confluence/display/IGNITE/
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Coding+Guidelines
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > .
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > code must not contain TODOs
> >> without
> >> > a
> >> > > > > ticket
> >> > > > > > > > > >> reference.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > It is highly recommended to
> make
> >> > major
> >> > > > > > > > formatting
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > changes
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > in
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > existing
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > code
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > as a separate commit, to make
> >> review
> >> > > > > process
> >> > > > > > > > more
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > practical.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Documentation.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Added code should be
> >> > well-documented.
> >> > > > Any
> >> > > > > > > > methods
> >> > > > > > > > > >> that
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > raise
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > questions
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > regarding their code flow,
> >> > invariants,
> >> > > > > > > > > >> synchronization,
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > etc.,
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > must
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > be
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > documented with comprehensive
> >> > javadoc.
> >> > > > Any
> >> > > > > > > > > reviewer
> >> > > > > > > > > >> can
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > request
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > that
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > a
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > particular added method be
> >> > documented.
> >> > > > > Also,
> >> > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > > > > is a
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > good
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > practice
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > document old code in a 10-20
> >> lines
> >> > > > region
> >> > > > > > > around
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > changed
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > code.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 3) Logging.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Make sure that there are enough
> >> > > logging
> >> > > > > > added
> >> > > > > > > in
> >> > > > > > > > > >> every
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > category
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > possible diagnostic in field.
> >> Check
> >> > > that
> >> > > > > > > logging
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > messages
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > are
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > properly
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > spelled.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 4) Metrics.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Are there any metrics that need
> >> to
> >> > be
> >> > > > > > exposed
> >> > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > >> user?
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 5) TC status.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Recheck that there are no new
> >> > failing
> >> > > > > tests
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 6) Refactoring.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The code should be better than
> >> > before:
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - extract method from big
> one;
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - do anything else to make
> >> code
> >> > > > clearer
> >> > > > > > > > (don't
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > forget
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > about
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > some
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    OOP-practise, replace
> if-else
> >> > hell
> >> > > > with
> >> > > > > > > > > >> inheritance
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - split refactoring
> (renaming,
> >> > code
> >> > > > > > format)
> >> > > > > > > > > from
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > actual
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > changes
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > by
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    separate commit
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:23
> PM,
> >> > > Eduard
> >> > > > > > > > > Shangareev <
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, guys.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that we should
> update
> >> > > > > > maintainers
> >> > > > > > > > list
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > before
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > adding
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > this
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > review
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > requirement.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > There should not be the
> >> situation
> >> > > when
> >> > > > > > there
> >> > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > >> only
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > one
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > contributor
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > who
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > is responsible for a
> component.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > We already have issues with
> >> review
> >> > > > speed
> >> > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > >> response
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > time.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 2:17
> >> PM,
> >> > > Anton
> >> > > > > > > > > Vinogradov
> >> > > > > > > > > >> <
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > av@apache.org
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vova,
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Everything you described
> >> sound
> >> > > good
> >> > > > to
> >> > > > > > me.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to propose to
> create
> >> > > > special
> >> > > > > > page
> >> > > > > > > > at
> >> > > > > > > > > AI
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > Wiki
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > describe
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > checklist.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case we'll find
> something
> >> > > should
> >> > > > be
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > changed/improved
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > it
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > will
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > be
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > easy
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > update the page.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 0:53 GMT+03:00
> >> > Nikolay
> >> > > > > > Izhikov
> >> > > > > > > <
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > nizhikov@apache.org
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > :
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Vladimir.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for seting up
> >> this
> >> > > > > > discussion.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As we discussed, I think
> an
> >> > > > > important
> >> > > > > > > part
> >> > > > > > > > > of
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > this
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > check
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > list
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > compatibility rules.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * What should be backward
> >> > > > > compatible?
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * How should we maintain
> >> it?
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) If ticket changes
> >> public
> >> > > API
> >> > > > or
> >> > > > > > > > > existing
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > behavior,
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > at
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > least
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > two
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commiters should approve
> >> the
> >> > > > changes
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can learn from other
> >> open
> >> > > > source
> >> > > > > > > > project
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > experience.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Apache Kafka [1], for
> >> example,
> >> > > > > > requires
> >> > > > > > > > > >> KIP(kafka
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > improvement
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > proposal)
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for *every* major change.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Major change definition
> >> > includes
> >> > > > > > public
> >> > > > > > > > API.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > confluence/display/KAFKA/
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> Kafka+Improvement+Proposals
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > В Чт, 19/04/2018 в 23:00
> >> > +0300,
> >> > > > > > Vladimir
> >> > > > > > > > > >> Ozerov
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > пишет:
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's glad to see our
> >> > community
> >> > > > > > becomes
> >> > > > > > > > > >> larger
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > every
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > day.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > But
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > as
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > grows
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes more and more
> >> > > difficult
> >> > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > manage
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > review and
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > merge
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > processes
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > keep quality of our
> >> > decisions
> >> > > at
> >> > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > proper
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > level.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > More
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > contributors,
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commits, more
> components
> >> > > > > interlinked
> >> > > > > > > > with
> >> > > > > > > > > >> each
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > other
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > in
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > subtle
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > ways.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to propose
> >> to
> >> > > > setup a
> >> > > > > > > > formal
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > review
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > checklist.
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > This
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > would
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be a
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > set of actions every
> >> > reviewer
> >> > > > > needs
> >> > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > check
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > before
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > approving
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > merge
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of a
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > certain feature.
> Passing
> >> the
> >> > > > > > checklist
> >> > > > > > > > > >> would be
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > *necessary
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > but
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > not
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sufficient* phase
> before
> >> > > commit
> >> > > > > > could
> >> > > > > > > be
> >> > > > > > > > > >> added
> >> > > > > > > > > >> > to
> >> > > > > > > >

Re: Ticket review checklist

[Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>]

Igniters,

I created review checklist on WIKI [1] and also fixed related pages (e.g.
"How To Contribute"). Please let me know if you have any comments before I
go with public announce.

Vladimir.

[1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Review+Checklist

On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:10 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>
wrote:

> Ilya,
>
> We define that exception messages *SHOULD* have clear explanation on what
> is wrong. *SHOULD* mean that the rule should be followed unless there is a
> reason not to follow. In your case you refer to some unexpected behavior.
> I.e. an exceptional situation developer is not aware of. In this case for
> sure we cannot force contributor to explain what is wrong, because, well,
> we don't know. This is why we relaxed the rule from *MUST* to *SHOULD*.
>
> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Ilya Kasnacheev <
> ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't think I quite understand how exception explanations should work.
>>
>> Imagine we have the following exception:
>>
>> // At least RuntimeException can be thrown by the code above when
>> GridCacheContext is cleaned and there is
>> // an attempt to use cleaned resources.
>> U.error(log, "Unexpected exception during cache update", e);
>>
>> I mean, we genuinely don't know what happened here.
>>
>> Under new rules, what kind of "workaround" would that exception suggest?
>> "Try turning it off and then back on"?
>> What explanation how to resolve this exception can we offer? "Please write
>> to dev@apache.ignite.org or to Apache JIRA, and then wait for a release
>> with fix?"
>>
>> I'm really confused how we can implement 1.6 and 1.7 when dealing with
>> messy real-world code.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ilya Kasnacheev
>>
>> 2018-05-10 11:39 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>:
>>
>> > Andrey, Anton, Alex
>> >
>> > Agree, *SHOULD* is more appropriate here.
>> >
>> > Please see latest version below. Does anyone want to add or change
>> > something? Let's wait for several days for more feedback and then
>> publish
>> > and announce this list. Note that it would not be carved in stone and we
>> > will be able to change it at any time if needed.
>> >
>> > 1) API
>> > 1.1) API compatibility *MUST* be maintained between minor releases. Do
>> not
>> > remove existing methods or change their signatures, deprecate them
>> instead
>> > 1.2) Default behaviour "SHOULD NOT* be changed between minor releases,
>> > unless absolutely needed. If change is made, it *MUST* be described in
>> > "Migration Guide"
>> > 1.3) New operation *MUST* be well-documented in code (javadoc,
>> dotnetdoc):
>> > documentation must contain method's purpose, description of parameters
>> and
>> > how their values affect the outcome, description of return value and
>> it's
>> > default, behavior in negative cases, interaction with other operations
>> and
>> > components
>> > 1.4) API parity between Java and .NET platforms *SHOULD* be maintained
>> when
>> > operation makes sense on both platforms. If method cannot be
>> implemented in
>> > a platform immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be created and linked to
>> > current ticket
>> > 1.5) API parity between thin clients (Java, .NET) *SHOULD* be maintained
>> > when operation makes sense on several clients. If method cannot be
>> > implemented in a client immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be created
>> and
>> > linked to current ticket
>> > 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user **SHOULD** have explanation how to
>> > resolve, workaround or debug an error
>> >
>> > 2) Compatibility
>> > 2.1) Persistence backward compatibility *MUST* be maintained between
>> minor
>> > releases. It should be possible to start newer version on data files
>> > created by the previous version
>> > 2.2) Thin client forward and backward compatibility *SHOULD* be
>> maintained
>> > between two consecutive minor releases. If compatibility cannot be
>> > maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
>> > 2.3) JDBC and ODBC forward and backward compatibility *SHOULD* be
>> > maintained between two consecutive minor releases. If compatibility
>> cannot
>> > be maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
>> >
>> > 3) Tests
>> > 3.1) New functionality *MUST* be covered with unit tests for both
>> positive
>> > and negative use cases
>> > 3.2) All test suites *MUST* be run before merge to master..There *MUST*
>> be
>> > no new test failures
>> >
>> > 4) Code style *MUST* be followed as per Ignite's Coding Guidelines
>> >
>> > Vladimir.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 1:05 PM, Andrey Kuznetsov <st...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Anton,
>> > >
>> > > I agree, *MUST* for exception reasons and *SHOULD* for ways of
>> resolution
>> > > sound clearer.
>> > >
>> > > 2018-05-08 12:56 GMT+03:00 Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
>> > >
>> > > > Andrey,
>> > > >
>> > > > How about
>> > > > 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user *MUST* have explanation of
>> > > workaround
>> > > > and contain original error.
>> > > > All exceptions thrown to a user *SHOULD* have explanation how to
>> > resolve
>> > > if
>> > > > possible.
>> > > > ?
>> > > >
>> > > > вт, 8 мая 2018 г. в 12:26, Andrey Kuznetsov <st...@gmail.com>:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Vladimir, checklist looks pleasant enough for me.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I'd like to suggest one minor change. In 1.6 *MUST* seems to be
>> too
>> > > > strict,
>> > > > > *SHOULD* would be enough. It can be frustrating for API user if I
>> > > explain
>> > > > > how to fix NPEs in a trivial way, for example.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > 2018-05-08 11:34 GMT+03:00 Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > Alex,
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > It is not sounds like that, obviously.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Tests should cover all negative and positive cases.
>> > > > > > You should add enough tests to cover all cases.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Sometimes one test can cover more than one case, so two tests
>> *CAN*
>> > > > > > partially check same things.
>> > > > > > In case some cases already covered you should not create
>> > duplicates.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > вт, 8 мая 2018 г. в 10:19, Александр Меньшиков <
>> > sharplermc@gmail.com
>> > > >:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Vladimir, the 3.1 is a bit unclear for me. Which code
>> coverage is
>> > > > > > > acceptable? Now it sounds like two tests are enough (one for
>> > > positive
>> > > > > and
>> > > > > > > one for negative cases).
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > 2018-05-07 23:09 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <
>> > > dsetrakyan@apache.org
>> > > > >:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Is this list on the Wiki?
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 7:26 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <
>> > > > > vozerov@gridgain.com>
>> > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > Igniters,
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > This is the checklist I have at the moment. Please let me
>> > know
>> > > if
>> > > > > you
>> > > > > > > > have
>> > > > > > > > > any comments on existing items, or want to add or remove
>> > > > anything.
>> > > > > It
>> > > > > > > > looks
>> > > > > > > > > like we may have not only strict rules, but *nice to have*
>> > > points
>> > > > > > here
>> > > > > > > as
>> > > > > > > > > well with help of *MUST*, *SHOULD* and *MAY* words as per
>> > > RFC2119
>> > > > > > [1].
>> > > > > > > So
>> > > > > > > > > please feel free to suggest optional items as well.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > 1) API
>> > > > > > > > > 1.1) API compatibility *MUST* be maintained between minor
>> > > > releases.
>> > > > > > Do
>> > > > > > > > not
>> > > > > > > > > remove existing methods or change their signatures,
>> deprecate
>> > > > them
>> > > > > > > > instead
>> > > > > > > > > 1.2) Default behaviour "SHOULD NOT* be changed between
>> minor
>> > > > > > releases,
>> > > > > > > > > unless absolutely needed. If change is made, it *MUST* be
>> > > > described
>> > > > > > in
>> > > > > > > > > "Migration Guide"
>> > > > > > > > > 1.3) New operation *MUST* be well-documented in code
>> > (javadoc,
>> > > > > > > > dotnetdoc):
>> > > > > > > > > documentation must contain method's purpose, description
>> of
>> > > > > > parameters
>> > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > how their values affect the outcome, description of return
>> > > value
>> > > > > and
>> > > > > > > it's
>> > > > > > > > > default, behavior in negative cases, interaction with
>> other
>> > > > > > operations
>> > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > components
>> > > > > > > > > 1.4) API parity between Java and .NET platforms *SHOULD*
>> be
>> > > > > > maintained
>> > > > > > > > when
>> > > > > > > > > operation makes sense on both platforms. If method cannot
>> be
>> > > > > > > implemented
>> > > > > > > > in
>> > > > > > > > > a platform immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be created
>> and
>> > > > > linked
>> > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > current ticket
>> > > > > > > > > 1.5) API parity between thin clients (Java, .NET)
>> *SHOULD* be
>> > > > > > > maintained
>> > > > > > > > > when operation makes sense on several clients. If method
>> > cannot
>> > > > be
>> > > > > > > > > implemented in a client immediately, new JIRA ticket
>> *MUST*
>> > be
>> > > > > > created
>> > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > linked to current ticket
>> > > > > > > > > 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user *MUST* have
>> explanation
>> > > how
>> > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > resolve, workaround or debug an error
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > 2) Compatibility
>> > > > > > > > > 2.1) Persistence backward compatibility *MUST* be
>> maintained
>> > > > > between
>> > > > > > > > minor
>> > > > > > > > > releases. It should be possible to start newer version on
>> > data
>> > > > > files
>> > > > > > > > > created by the previous version
>> > > > > > > > > 2.2) Thin client forward and backward compatibility
>> *SHOULD*
>> > be
>> > > > > > > > maintained
>> > > > > > > > > between two consecutive minor releases. If compatibility
>> > cannot
>> > > > be
>> > > > > > > > > maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
>> > > > > > > > > 2.3) JDBC and ODBC forward and backward compatibility
>> > *SHOULD*
>> > > be
>> > > > > > > > > maintained between two consecutive minor releases. If
>> > > > compatibility
>> > > > > > > > cannot
>> > > > > > > > > be maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > 3) Tests
>> > > > > > > > > 3.1) New functionality *MUST* be covered with unit tests
>> for
>> > > both
>> > > > > > > > positive
>> > > > > > > > > and negative use cases
>> > > > > > > > > 3.2) All test suites *MUST* be run before merge to
>> > > master..There
>> > > > > > *MUST*
>> > > > > > > > be
>> > > > > > > > > no new test failures
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > 4) Code style *MUST* be followed as per Ignite's Coding
>> > > > Guidelines
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > Vladimir.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > [1] https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
>> > > > > > vozerov@gridgain.com>
>> > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > Hi Dmitry,
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > Yes, I'll do that in the nearest days.
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <
>> > > > > > > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> Igniters, the idea was related to small refactorings
>> > > > co-located
>> > > > > > with
>> > > > > > > > > main
>> > > > > > > > > >> change.
>> > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > >> Main change itself indicates that existing code did not
>> > meet
>> > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > criteria
>> > > > > > > > > >> of practice. Approving of standalone refactorings
>> instead
>> > > > > > > contradicts
>> > > > > > > > > with
>> > > > > > > > > >> principle don't touch if it works. So I still like
>> idea of
>> > > > > > > co-located
>> > > > > > > > > >> changes improving code, javadocs, style, etc.
>> > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > >> But let's not argue about this point now, let's
>> summarize
>> > > the
>> > > > > > > > undisputed
>> > > > > > > > > >> points and add it to the wiki. Vladimir, would you
>> please
>> > do
>> > > > it?
>> > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > >> ср, 25 апр. 2018 г. в 16:42, Nikolay Izhikov <
>> > > > > nizhikov@apache.org
>> > > > > > >:
>> > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > >> > Igniters,
>> > > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > I agree with Vova.
>> > > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > Don't fix if it works!
>> > > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > If you 100% sure then it a useful addition to the
>> > product
>> > > -
>> > > > > just
>> > > > > > > > make
>> > > > > > > > > a
>> > > > > > > > > >> > separate ticket.
>> > > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > В Ср, 25/04/2018 в 11:44 +0300, Vladimir Ozerov
>> пишет:
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > Guys,
>> > > > > > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > The problem with in-place refactorings is that you
>> > > > increase
>> > > > > > > > affected
>> > > > > > > > > >> > scope.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > It is not uncommon to break compatibility or public
>> > > > > contracts
>> > > > > > > with
>> > > > > > > > > >> even
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > minor things. E.g. recently we decided drop
>> org.jsr166
>> > > > > package
>> > > > > > > in
>> > > > > > > > > >> favor
>> > > > > > > > > >> > of
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > Java 8 classes. Innocent change. Result - broken
>> > > storage.
>> > > > > > > Another
>> > > > > > > > > >> problem
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > is conflicts. It is not uncommon to have long-lived
>> > > > branches
>> > > > > > > which
>> > > > > > > > > we
>> > > > > > > > > >> > need
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > to merge with master over and over again. And a
>> lot of
>> > > > > > > > refactorings
>> > > > > > > > > >> cause
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > conflicts. It is much easier to resolve them if you
>> > know
>> > > > > that
>> > > > > > > > logic
>> > > > > > > > > >> was
>> > > > > > > > > >> > not
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > affected as opposed to cases when you need to
>> resolve
>> > > both
>> > > > > > > renames
>> > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > method extractions along with business-logic
>> changes.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > I'd like to repeat - if you have a time for
>> > refactoring
>> > > > then
>> > > > > > you
>> > > > > > > > > >> > definitely
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > have a time to extract these changes to separate PR
>> > and
>> > > > > > submit a
>> > > > > > > > > >> separate
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > ticket. I am quite understand what "low priority"
>> do
>> > you
>> > > > > mean
>> > > > > > if
>> > > > > > > > you
>> > > > > > > > > >> do
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > refactorings on your own.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 10:52 PM, Andrey Kuznetsov
>> <
>> > > > > > > > > stkuzma@gmail.com
>> > > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > +1.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > Once again, I beg for "small refactoring
>> permission"
>> > > in
>> > > > a
>> > > > > > > > > checklist.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > As of
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > today, separate tickets for small refactorings
>> has
>> > > > lowest
>> > > > > > > > > priority,
>> > > > > > > > > >> > since
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > they neither fix any flaw nor add new
>> functionality.
>> > > > Also,
>> > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > >> > attempts to
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > make issue-related code safer / cleaner / more
>> > > readable
>> > > > in
>> > > > > > > > "real"
>> > > > > > > > > >> pull
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > requests are typically rejected, since they
>> > contradict
>> > > > our
>> > > > > > > > current
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > guidelines.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > I understand this will require a bit more effort
>> > from
>> > > > > > > > > >> > committer/maintainer,
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > but otherwise we will get constantly degrading
>> code
>> > > > > quality.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > 2018-04-24 18:52 GMT+03:00 Eduard Shangareev <
>> > > > > > > > > >> > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > :
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Vladimir,
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > I am not talking about massive/sophisticated
>> > > > > refactoring.
>> > > > > > > But
>> > > > > > > > I
>> > > > > > > > > >> > believe
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > that ask to extract some methods should be OK
>> to
>> > do
>> > > > > > without
>> > > > > > > an
>> > > > > > > > > >> extra
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > ticket.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > A checklist shouldn't be necessarily a set of
>> > > certain
>> > > > > > rules
>> > > > > > > > but
>> > > > > > > > > >> also
>> > > > > > > > > >> > it
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > could include suggestion and reminders.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 6:39 PM, Vladimir
>> Ozerov <
>> > > > > > > > > >> > vozerov@gridgain.com>
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Ed,
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Refactoring is a separate task. If you would
>> > like
>> > > to
>> > > > > > > rework
>> > > > > > > > > >> > exchange
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > future
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > - please do this in a ticket "Refactor
>> exchange
>> > > > task",
>> > > > > > > > nobody
>> > > > > > > > > >> would
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > against
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > this. This is just a matter of creating
>> separate
>> > > > > ticket
>> > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > >> > separate
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > PR.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > If
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > one have a time for refactoring, it should
>> not
>> > be
>> > > a
>> > > > > > > problem
>> > > > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > > >> > him to
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > spend several minutes on JIRA and GitHub.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > As far as documentation - what you describe
>> is
>> > > > normal
>> > > > > > > review
>> > > > > > > > > >> > process,
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > when
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > reviewer might want to ask contributor to fix
>> > > > > something.
>> > > > > > > > > >> Checklist
>> > > > > > > > > >> > is a
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > different thing - this is a set of rules
>> which
>> > > must
>> > > > be
>> > > > > > > > > followed
>> > > > > > > > > >> by
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > anyone.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > I do not understand how you can define
>> > > documentation
>> > > > > in
>> > > > > > > this
>> > > > > > > > > >> > checklist.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Same problem with logging - what is "enough"?
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Eduard
>> > > Shangareev <
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Igniters,
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I don't understand why you are so against
>> > > > > refactoring.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Code already smells like hell. Methods 200+
>> > line
>> > > > is
>> > > > > > > > normal.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > Exchange
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > future
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > is asking to be separated on several one.
>> > > > > Transaction
>> > > > > > > code
>> > > > > > > > > >> could
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > understand
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > few people.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > If we separate refactoring from
>> development it
>> > > > would
>> > > > > > > mean
>> > > > > > > > > that
>> > > > > > > > > >> > no one
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > will
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > do it.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > 2) Documentation.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Everything which was asked by reviewers to
>> > > clarify
>> > > > > > idea
>> > > > > > > > > >> should be
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > reflected
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > in the code.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > 3) Logging.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Logging should be enough to troubleshoot
>> the
>> > > > problem
>> > > > > > if
>> > > > > > > > > >> someone
>> > > > > > > > > >> > comes
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > user-list with an issue in the code.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 7:06 PM, Dmitry
>> > Pavlov <
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > +1 to idea of checklist.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > +1 to refactoring and documenting code
>> > related
>> > > > to
>> > > > > > > ticket
>> > > > > > > > > in
>> > > > > > > > > >> > +/-20
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > LOC
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > at
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > least.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > If we start to do it as part of our
>> regular
>> > > > > > > > contribution,
>> > > > > > > > > >> code
>> > > > > > > > > >> > will
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > be
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > better, it would became common practice
>> and
>> > > part
>> > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > Apache
>> > > > > > > > > >> > Ignite
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > development culure.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > If we will hope we will have free time to
>> > > submit
>> > > > > > > > separate
>> > > > > > > > > >> patch
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > someday
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > have patience to complete
>> patch-submission
>> > > > > process,
>> > > > > > > code
>> > > > > > > > > >> will
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > remain
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > undocumented and poor-readable.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Sincerely,
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > пт, 20 апр. 2018 г. в 18:56, Александр
>> > > > Меньшиков <
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > sharplermc@gmail.com
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > :
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 4) Metrics.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > partially +1
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > It makes sense to have some minimal
>> code
>> > > > > coverage
>> > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > > new
>> > > > > > > > > >> > code in
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > PR.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IMHO.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Also, we can limit the cyclomatic
>> > complexity
>> > > > of
>> > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > new
>> > > > > > > > > >> code
>> > > > > > > > > >> > in
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > PR
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > too.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 6) Refactoring
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > -1
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > I understand why people want to
>> refactor
>> > old
>> > > > > code.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > But I think refactoring should be
>> always a
>> > > > > > separate
>> > > > > > > > > task.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > And it's better to remove all
>> refactoring
>> > > from
>> > > > > PR,
>> > > > > > > if
>> > > > > > > > > it's
>> > > > > > > > > >> > not
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > sense
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > the issue.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 16:54 GMT+03:00 Andrey
>> > Kuznetsov
>> > > <
>> > > > > > > > > >> > stkuzma@gmail.com>:
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > What about adding the following item
>> to
>> > > the
>> > > > > > > > checklist:
>> > > > > > > > > >> > when the
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > change
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > adds
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > new functionality, then unit tests
>> > should
>> > > > also
>> > > > > > be
>> > > > > > > > > >> > provided, if
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > it's
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > technically possible?
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > As for refactorings, in fact they are
>> > > > strongly
>> > > > > > > > > >> discouraged
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > today
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > some
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > unclear reason. Let's permit to make
>> > > > > > refactorings
>> > > > > > > in
>> > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > checklist
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > being
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > discussed. (Of cource, refactoring
>> > should
>> > > > > relate
>> > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > >> problem
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > being
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > solved.)
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 16:16 GMT+03:00 Vladimir
>> > > Ozerov <
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > vozerov@gridgain.com
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > :
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ed,
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately some of these points
>> are
>> > > not
>> > > > > > good
>> > > > > > > > > >> > candidates
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > for
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > checklist because of these:
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > - It must be clear and disallow
>> > > *multiple
>> > > > > > > > > >> > interpretations*
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > - It must be *lightweight*,
>> otherwise
>> > > > Ignite
>> > > > > > > > > >> development
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > would
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > become a
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > nightmare
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > We cannot have "nice to have"
>> points
>> > > here.
>> > > > > > > > Checklist
>> > > > > > > > > >> > should
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > answer
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > question "is ticket eligible to be
>> > > > merged?"
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Code style.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > +1
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  2) Documentation
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -1, it is impossible to define
>> what is
>> > > > > > > > > >> > "well-documented". A
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > piece
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > code
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > could be obvious for one
>> contributor,
>> > > and
>> > > > > > > > > non-obvious
>> > > > > > > > > >> for
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > another.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > In
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > any
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > case this is not a blocker for
>> merge.
>> > > > > Instead,
>> > > > > > > > > during
>> > > > > > > > > >> > review
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > one
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > can
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > ask
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > implementer to add more docs, but
>> it
>> > > > cannot
>> > > > > be
>> > > > > > > > > forced.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  3) Logging
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -1, same problem - what is "enough
>> > > > > logging?".
>> > > > > > > > Enough
>> > > > > > > > > >> for
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > whom?
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > How
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > understand whether it is enough or
>> > not?
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  4) Metrics
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -1, no clear boundaries, and
>> decision
>> > on
>> > > > > > whether
>> > > > > > > > > >> metrics
>> > > > > > > > > >> > are
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > be
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > added
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > or
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > not should be performed during
>> design
>> > > > phase.
>> > > > > > As
>> > > > > > > > > >> before,
>> > > > > > > > > >> > it is
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > perfectly
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > valid to ask contributor to add
>> > metrics
>> > > > with
>> > > > > > > clear
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > explanation
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > why,
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > but
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > this is not part of the checklist.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5) TC status
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > +1, already mentioned
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  6) Refactoring
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Strong -1. OOP is a slippery slope,
>> > > there
>> > > > > are
>> > > > > > no
>> > > > > > > > > good
>> > > > > > > > > >> > and bad
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > receipts
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > all cases, hence it cannot be used
>> in
>> > a
>> > > > > > > checklist.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > We can borrow useful rules from
>> p.2,
>> > p.3
>> > > > and
>> > > > > > p.4
>> > > > > > > > if
>> > > > > > > > > >> you
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > provide
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > clear
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > definitions on how to measure them.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Vladimir.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:50 PM,
>> > Eduard
>> > > > > > > > Shangareev <
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Also, I want to add some
>> technical
>> > > > > > > requirement.
>> > > > > > > > > >> Let's
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > discuss
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > them.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Code style.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The code needs to be formatted
>> > > according
>> > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > coding
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > guidelines
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > <
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/
>> > > > > > confluence/display/IGNITE/
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Coding+Guidelines
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > .
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > code must not contain TODOs
>> without
>> > a
>> > > > > ticket
>> > > > > > > > > >> reference.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > It is highly recommended to make
>> > major
>> > > > > > > > formatting
>> > > > > > > > > >> > changes
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > in
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > existing
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > code
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > as a separate commit, to make
>> review
>> > > > > process
>> > > > > > > > more
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > practical.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Documentation.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Added code should be
>> > well-documented.
>> > > > Any
>> > > > > > > > methods
>> > > > > > > > > >> that
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > raise
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > questions
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > regarding their code flow,
>> > invariants,
>> > > > > > > > > >> synchronization,
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > etc.,
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > must
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > be
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > documented with comprehensive
>> > javadoc.
>> > > > Any
>> > > > > > > > > reviewer
>> > > > > > > > > >> can
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > request
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > that
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > a
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > particular added method be
>> > documented.
>> > > > > Also,
>> > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > > > > is a
>> > > > > > > > > >> > good
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > practice
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > document old code in a 10-20
>> lines
>> > > > region
>> > > > > > > around
>> > > > > > > > > >> > changed
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > code.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 3) Logging.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Make sure that there are enough
>> > > logging
>> > > > > > added
>> > > > > > > in
>> > > > > > > > > >> every
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > category
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > possible diagnostic in field.
>> Check
>> > > that
>> > > > > > > logging
>> > > > > > > > > >> > messages
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > are
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > properly
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > spelled.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 4) Metrics.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Are there any metrics that need
>> to
>> > be
>> > > > > > exposed
>> > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > >> user?
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 5) TC status.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Recheck that there are no new
>> > failing
>> > > > > tests
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 6) Refactoring.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The code should be better than
>> > before:
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - extract method from big one;
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - do anything else to make
>> code
>> > > > clearer
>> > > > > > > > (don't
>> > > > > > > > > >> > forget
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > about
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > some
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    OOP-practise, replace if-else
>> > hell
>> > > > with
>> > > > > > > > > >> inheritance
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - split refactoring (renaming,
>> > code
>> > > > > > format)
>> > > > > > > > > from
>> > > > > > > > > >> > actual
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > changes
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > by
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    separate commit
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:23 PM,
>> > > Eduard
>> > > > > > > > > Shangareev <
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, guys.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that we should update
>> > > > > > maintainers
>> > > > > > > > list
>> > > > > > > > > >> > before
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > adding
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > this
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > review
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > requirement.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > There should not be the
>> situation
>> > > when
>> > > > > > there
>> > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > >> only
>> > > > > > > > > >> > one
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > contributor
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > who
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > is responsible for a component.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > We already have issues with
>> review
>> > > > speed
>> > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > >> response
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > time.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 2:17
>> PM,
>> > > Anton
>> > > > > > > > > Vinogradov
>> > > > > > > > > >> <
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > av@apache.org
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vova,
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Everything you described
>> sound
>> > > good
>> > > > to
>> > > > > > me.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to propose to create
>> > > > special
>> > > > > > page
>> > > > > > > > at
>> > > > > > > > > AI
>> > > > > > > > > >> > Wiki
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > describe
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > checklist.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case we'll find something
>> > > should
>> > > > be
>> > > > > > > > > >> > changed/improved
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > it
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > will
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > be
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > easy
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > update the page.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 0:53 GMT+03:00
>> > Nikolay
>> > > > > > Izhikov
>> > > > > > > <
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > nizhikov@apache.org
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > :
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Vladimir.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for seting up
>> this
>> > > > > > discussion.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As we discussed, I think an
>> > > > > important
>> > > > > > > part
>> > > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > > >> > this
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > check
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > list
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > compatibility rules.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * What should be backward
>> > > > > compatible?
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * How should we maintain
>> it?
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) If ticket changes
>> public
>> > > API
>> > > > or
>> > > > > > > > > existing
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > behavior,
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > at
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > least
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > two
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commiters should approve
>> the
>> > > > changes
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can learn from other
>> open
>> > > > source
>> > > > > > > > project
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > experience.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Apache Kafka [1], for
>> example,
>> > > > > > requires
>> > > > > > > > > >> KIP(kafka
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > improvement
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > proposal)
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for *every* major change.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Major change definition
>> > includes
>> > > > > > public
>> > > > > > > > API.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > confluence/display/KAFKA/
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kafka+Improvement+Proposals
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > В Чт, 19/04/2018 в 23:00
>> > +0300,
>> > > > > > Vladimir
>> > > > > > > > > >> Ozerov
>> > > > > > > > > >> > пишет:
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's glad to see our
>> > community
>> > > > > > becomes
>> > > > > > > > > >> larger
>> > > > > > > > > >> > every
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > day.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > But
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > as
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > grows
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes more and more
>> > > difficult
>> > > > to
>> > > > > > > > manage
>> > > > > > > > > >> > review and
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > merge
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > processes
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > keep quality of our
>> > decisions
>> > > at
>> > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > proper
>> > > > > > > > > >> > level.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > More
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > contributors,
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commits, more components
>> > > > > interlinked
>> > > > > > > > with
>> > > > > > > > > >> each
>> > > > > > > > > >> > other
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > in
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > subtle
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > ways.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to propose
>> to
>> > > > setup a
>> > > > > > > > formal
>> > > > > > > > > >> > review
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > checklist.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > This
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > would
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be a
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > set of actions every
>> > reviewer
>> > > > > needs
>> > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > check
>> > > > > > > > > >> > before
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > approving
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > merge
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of a
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > certain feature. Passing
>> the
>> > > > > > checklist
>> > > > > > > > > >> would be
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > *necessary
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > but
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > not
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sufficient* phase before
>> > > commit
>> > > > > > could
>> > > > > > > be
>> > > > > > > > > >> added
>> > > > > > > > > >> > to
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > main
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > branch.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > checklist would help us
>> to
>> > > > detect
>> > > > > a
>> > > > > > > lot
>> > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > > >> > common
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > problems
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > such
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > a
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > broken
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests or bad UX earlier,
>> and
>> > > > would
>> > > > > > > help
>> > > > > > > > > >> > contributors
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > lead
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > their
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > pull
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > requests to merge.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hallmarks of a good
>> > checklist:
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - It must be followed be
>> > > > everyone
>> > > > > > > > without
>> > > > > > > > > >> > exceptions
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - It must be clear and
>> > > disallow
>> > > > > > > multiple
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > interpretations
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - It must be lightweight,
>> > > > > otherwise
>> > > > > > > > Ignite
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > development
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > would
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > become
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > a
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nightmare
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - It must be
>> non-blocking,
>> > > i.e.
>> > > > > > > > > >> inacessibility
>> > > > > > > > > >> > of a
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > single
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > contributor
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should not block ticket
>> > > progress
>> > > > > > > > forever.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please let me know if you
>> > > think
>> > > > > the
>> > > > > > > idea
>> > > > > > > > > >> makes
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > sense.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > If
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > we
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > agree
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > on
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it,
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > let's start defining
>> action
>> > > > items
>> > > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > >> > checklist.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > My
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 2
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > cents:
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) All unit tests pass
>> on TC
>> > > > > without
>> > > > > > > new
>> > > > > > > > > >> > failures
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) If ticket targets
>> > specific
>> > > > > > > component,
>> > > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > > > > >> > should
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > be
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > reviewed
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > by
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > component's maintainer*
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) If ticket changes
>> public
>> > > API
>> > > > or
>> > > > > > > > > existing
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > behavior,
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > at
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > least
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > two
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commiters should approve
>> the
>> > > > > changes
>> > > > > > > **
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts?
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vladimir.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * TBD: Review component
>> list
>> > > and
>> > > > > > > define
>> > > > > > > > > >> > maintainers;
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > define
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > what
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > do if
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > maintainer is unavailable
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ** TBD: Define what is
>> > "public
>> > > > > API"
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >   Andrey Kuznetsov.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > --
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > Best regards,
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > >   Andrey Kuznetsov.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > --
>> > > > > Best regards,
>> > > > >   Andrey Kuznetsov.
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Best regards,
>> > >   Andrey Kuznetsov.
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>

Re: Ticket review checklist

[Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>]

Ilya,

We define that exception messages *SHOULD* have clear explanation on what
is wrong. *SHOULD* mean that the rule should be followed unless there is a
reason not to follow. In your case you refer to some unexpected behavior.
I.e. an exceptional situation developer is not aware of. In this case for
sure we cannot force contributor to explain what is wrong, because, well,
we don't know. This is why we relaxed the rule from *MUST* to *SHOULD*.

On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Ilya Kasnacheev <il...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I don't think I quite understand how exception explanations should work.
>
> Imagine we have the following exception:
>
> // At least RuntimeException can be thrown by the code above when
> GridCacheContext is cleaned and there is
> // an attempt to use cleaned resources.
> U.error(log, "Unexpected exception during cache update", e);
>
> I mean, we genuinely don't know what happened here.
>
> Under new rules, what kind of "workaround" would that exception suggest?
> "Try turning it off and then back on"?
> What explanation how to resolve this exception can we offer? "Please write
> to dev@apache.ignite.org or to Apache JIRA, and then wait for a release
> with fix?"
>
> I'm really confused how we can implement 1.6 and 1.7 when dealing with
> messy real-world code.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> --
> Ilya Kasnacheev
>
> 2018-05-10 11:39 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>:
>
> > Andrey, Anton, Alex
> >
> > Agree, *SHOULD* is more appropriate here.
> >
> > Please see latest version below. Does anyone want to add or change
> > something? Let's wait for several days for more feedback and then publish
> > and announce this list. Note that it would not be carved in stone and we
> > will be able to change it at any time if needed.
> >
> > 1) API
> > 1.1) API compatibility *MUST* be maintained between minor releases. Do
> not
> > remove existing methods or change their signatures, deprecate them
> instead
> > 1.2) Default behaviour "SHOULD NOT* be changed between minor releases,
> > unless absolutely needed. If change is made, it *MUST* be described in
> > "Migration Guide"
> > 1.3) New operation *MUST* be well-documented in code (javadoc,
> dotnetdoc):
> > documentation must contain method's purpose, description of parameters
> and
> > how their values affect the outcome, description of return value and it's
> > default, behavior in negative cases, interaction with other operations
> and
> > components
> > 1.4) API parity between Java and .NET platforms *SHOULD* be maintained
> when
> > operation makes sense on both platforms. If method cannot be implemented
> in
> > a platform immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be created and linked to
> > current ticket
> > 1.5) API parity between thin clients (Java, .NET) *SHOULD* be maintained
> > when operation makes sense on several clients. If method cannot be
> > implemented in a client immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be created
> and
> > linked to current ticket
> > 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user **SHOULD** have explanation how to
> > resolve, workaround or debug an error
> >
> > 2) Compatibility
> > 2.1) Persistence backward compatibility *MUST* be maintained between
> minor
> > releases. It should be possible to start newer version on data files
> > created by the previous version
> > 2.2) Thin client forward and backward compatibility *SHOULD* be
> maintained
> > between two consecutive minor releases. If compatibility cannot be
> > maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
> > 2.3) JDBC and ODBC forward and backward compatibility *SHOULD* be
> > maintained between two consecutive minor releases. If compatibility
> cannot
> > be maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
> >
> > 3) Tests
> > 3.1) New functionality *MUST* be covered with unit tests for both
> positive
> > and negative use cases
> > 3.2) All test suites *MUST* be run before merge to master..There *MUST*
> be
> > no new test failures
> >
> > 4) Code style *MUST* be followed as per Ignite's Coding Guidelines
> >
> > Vladimir.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 1:05 PM, Andrey Kuznetsov <st...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Anton,
> > >
> > > I agree, *MUST* for exception reasons and *SHOULD* for ways of
> resolution
> > > sound clearer.
> > >
> > > 2018-05-08 12:56 GMT+03:00 Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > >
> > > > Andrey,
> > > >
> > > > How about
> > > > 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user *MUST* have explanation of
> > > workaround
> > > > and contain original error.
> > > > All exceptions thrown to a user *SHOULD* have explanation how to
> > resolve
> > > if
> > > > possible.
> > > > ?
> > > >
> > > > вт, 8 мая 2018 г. в 12:26, Andrey Kuznetsov <st...@gmail.com>:
> > > >
> > > > > Vladimir, checklist looks pleasant enough for me.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd like to suggest one minor change. In 1.6 *MUST* seems to be too
> > > > strict,
> > > > > *SHOULD* would be enough. It can be frustrating for API user if I
> > > explain
> > > > > how to fix NPEs in a trivial way, for example.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2018-05-08 11:34 GMT+03:00 Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Alex,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It is not sounds like that, obviously.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tests should cover all negative and positive cases.
> > > > > > You should add enough tests to cover all cases.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sometimes one test can cover more than one case, so two tests
> *CAN*
> > > > > > partially check same things.
> > > > > > In case some cases already covered you should not create
> > duplicates.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > вт, 8 мая 2018 г. в 10:19, Александр Меньшиков <
> > sharplermc@gmail.com
> > > >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Vladimir, the 3.1 is a bit unclear for me. Which code coverage
> is
> > > > > > > acceptable? Now it sounds like two tests are enough (one for
> > > positive
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > one for negative cases).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2018-05-07 23:09 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > > dsetrakyan@apache.org
> > > > >:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Is this list on the Wiki?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 7:26 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > > > vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This is the checklist I have at the moment. Please let me
> > know
> > > if
> > > > > you
> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > any comments on existing items, or want to add or remove
> > > > anything.
> > > > > It
> > > > > > > > looks
> > > > > > > > > like we may have not only strict rules, but *nice to have*
> > > points
> > > > > > here
> > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > well with help of *MUST*, *SHOULD* and *MAY* words as per
> > > RFC2119
> > > > > > [1].
> > > > > > > So
> > > > > > > > > please feel free to suggest optional items as well.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 1) API
> > > > > > > > > 1.1) API compatibility *MUST* be maintained between minor
> > > > releases.
> > > > > > Do
> > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > remove existing methods or change their signatures,
> deprecate
> > > > them
> > > > > > > > instead
> > > > > > > > > 1.2) Default behaviour "SHOULD NOT* be changed between
> minor
> > > > > > releases,
> > > > > > > > > unless absolutely needed. If change is made, it *MUST* be
> > > > described
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > "Migration Guide"
> > > > > > > > > 1.3) New operation *MUST* be well-documented in code
> > (javadoc,
> > > > > > > > dotnetdoc):
> > > > > > > > > documentation must contain method's purpose, description of
> > > > > > parameters
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > how their values affect the outcome, description of return
> > > value
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > default, behavior in negative cases, interaction with other
> > > > > > operations
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > components
> > > > > > > > > 1.4) API parity between Java and .NET platforms *SHOULD* be
> > > > > > maintained
> > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > operation makes sense on both platforms. If method cannot
> be
> > > > > > > implemented
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > a platform immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be created
> and
> > > > > linked
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > current ticket
> > > > > > > > > 1.5) API parity between thin clients (Java, .NET) *SHOULD*
> be
> > > > > > > maintained
> > > > > > > > > when operation makes sense on several clients. If method
> > cannot
> > > > be
> > > > > > > > > implemented in a client immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST*
> > be
> > > > > > created
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > linked to current ticket
> > > > > > > > > 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user *MUST* have
> explanation
> > > how
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > > resolve, workaround or debug an error
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 2) Compatibility
> > > > > > > > > 2.1) Persistence backward compatibility *MUST* be
> maintained
> > > > > between
> > > > > > > > minor
> > > > > > > > > releases. It should be possible to start newer version on
> > data
> > > > > files
> > > > > > > > > created by the previous version
> > > > > > > > > 2.2) Thin client forward and backward compatibility
> *SHOULD*
> > be
> > > > > > > > maintained
> > > > > > > > > between two consecutive minor releases. If compatibility
> > cannot
> > > > be
> > > > > > > > > maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
> > > > > > > > > 2.3) JDBC and ODBC forward and backward compatibility
> > *SHOULD*
> > > be
> > > > > > > > > maintained between two consecutive minor releases. If
> > > > compatibility
> > > > > > > > cannot
> > > > > > > > > be maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 3) Tests
> > > > > > > > > 3.1) New functionality *MUST* be covered with unit tests
> for
> > > both
> > > > > > > > positive
> > > > > > > > > and negative use cases
> > > > > > > > > 3.2) All test suites *MUST* be run before merge to
> > > master..There
> > > > > > *MUST*
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > no new test failures
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 4) Code style *MUST* be followed as per Ignite's Coding
> > > > Guidelines
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Vladimir.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [1] https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > > > > vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi Dmitry,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Yes, I'll do that in the nearest days.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <
> > > > > > > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> Igniters, the idea was related to small refactorings
> > > > co-located
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > main
> > > > > > > > > >> change.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Main change itself indicates that existing code did not
> > meet
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > criteria
> > > > > > > > > >> of practice. Approving of standalone refactorings
> instead
> > > > > > > contradicts
> > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > >> principle don't touch if it works. So I still like idea
> of
> > > > > > > co-located
> > > > > > > > > >> changes improving code, javadocs, style, etc.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> But let's not argue about this point now, let's
> summarize
> > > the
> > > > > > > > undisputed
> > > > > > > > > >> points and add it to the wiki. Vladimir, would you
> please
> > do
> > > > it?
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> ср, 25 апр. 2018 г. в 16:42, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > nizhikov@apache.org
> > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > I agree with Vova.
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > Don't fix if it works!
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > If you 100% sure then it a useful addition to the
> > product
> > > -
> > > > > just
> > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > >> > separate ticket.
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > В Ср, 25/04/2018 в 11:44 +0300, Vladimir Ozerov пишет:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > Guys,
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > The problem with in-place refactorings is that you
> > > > increase
> > > > > > > > affected
> > > > > > > > > >> > scope.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > It is not uncommon to break compatibility or public
> > > > > contracts
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > >> even
> > > > > > > > > >> > > minor things. E.g. recently we decided drop
> org.jsr166
> > > > > package
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > >> favor
> > > > > > > > > >> > of
> > > > > > > > > >> > > Java 8 classes. Innocent change. Result - broken
> > > storage.
> > > > > > > Another
> > > > > > > > > >> problem
> > > > > > > > > >> > > is conflicts. It is not uncommon to have long-lived
> > > > branches
> > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > >> > need
> > > > > > > > > >> > > to merge with master over and over again. And a lot
> of
> > > > > > > > refactorings
> > > > > > > > > >> cause
> > > > > > > > > >> > > conflicts. It is much easier to resolve them if you
> > know
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > logic
> > > > > > > > > >> was
> > > > > > > > > >> > not
> > > > > > > > > >> > > affected as opposed to cases when you need to
> resolve
> > > both
> > > > > > > renames
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > >> > > method extractions along with business-logic
> changes.
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > I'd like to repeat - if you have a time for
> > refactoring
> > > > then
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > >> > definitely
> > > > > > > > > >> > > have a time to extract these changes to separate PR
> > and
> > > > > > submit a
> > > > > > > > > >> separate
> > > > > > > > > >> > > ticket. I am quite understand what "low priority" do
> > you
> > > > > mean
> > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > >> do
> > > > > > > > > >> > > refactorings on your own.
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 10:52 PM, Andrey Kuznetsov <
> > > > > > > > > stkuzma@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > +1.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > Once again, I beg for "small refactoring
> permission"
> > > in
> > > > a
> > > > > > > > > checklist.
> > > > > > > > > >> > As of
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > today, separate tickets for small refactorings has
> > > > lowest
> > > > > > > > > priority,
> > > > > > > > > >> > since
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > they neither fix any flaw nor add new
> functionality.
> > > > Also,
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> > attempts to
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > make issue-related code safer / cleaner / more
> > > readable
> > > > in
> > > > > > > > "real"
> > > > > > > > > >> pull
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > requests are typically rejected, since they
> > contradict
> > > > our
> > > > > > > > current
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > guidelines.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > I understand this will require a bit more effort
> > from
> > > > > > > > > >> > committer/maintainer,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > but otherwise we will get constantly degrading
> code
> > > > > quality.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > 2018-04-24 18:52 GMT+03:00 Eduard Shangareev <
> > > > > > > > > >> > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Vladimir,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > I am not talking about massive/sophisticated
> > > > > refactoring.
> > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > >> > believe
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > that ask to extract some methods should be OK to
> > do
> > > > > > without
> > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > >> extra
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > ticket.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > A checklist shouldn't be necessarily a set of
> > > certain
> > > > > > rules
> > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > >> also
> > > > > > > > > >> > it
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > could include suggestion and reminders.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 6:39 PM, Vladimir
> Ozerov <
> > > > > > > > > >> > vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Ed,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Refactoring is a separate task. If you would
> > like
> > > to
> > > > > > > rework
> > > > > > > > > >> > exchange
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > future
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > - please do this in a ticket "Refactor
> exchange
> > > > task",
> > > > > > > > nobody
> > > > > > > > > >> would
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > against
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > this. This is just a matter of creating
> separate
> > > > > ticket
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > >> > separate
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > PR.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > one have a time for refactoring, it should not
> > be
> > > a
> > > > > > > problem
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > >> > him to
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > spend several minutes on JIRA and GitHub.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > As far as documentation - what you describe is
> > > > normal
> > > > > > > review
> > > > > > > > > >> > process,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > reviewer might want to ask contributor to fix
> > > > > something.
> > > > > > > > > >> Checklist
> > > > > > > > > >> > is a
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > different thing - this is a set of rules which
> > > must
> > > > be
> > > > > > > > > followed
> > > > > > > > > >> by
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > anyone.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > I do not understand how you can define
> > > documentation
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > >> > checklist.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Same problem with logging - what is "enough"?
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Eduard
> > > Shangareev <
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I don't understand why you are so against
> > > > > refactoring.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Code already smells like hell. Methods 200+
> > line
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > normal.
> > > > > > > > > >> > Exchange
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > future
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > is asking to be separated on several one.
> > > > > Transaction
> > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > > >> could
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > understand
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > few people.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > If we separate refactoring from development
> it
> > > > would
> > > > > > > mean
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > >> > no one
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > do it.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > 2) Documentation.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Everything which was asked by reviewers to
> > > clarify
> > > > > > idea
> > > > > > > > > >> should be
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > reflected
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > in the code.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > 3) Logging.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Logging should be enough to troubleshoot the
> > > > problem
> > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > >> someone
> > > > > > > > > >> > comes
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > user-list with an issue in the code.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 7:06 PM, Dmitry
> > Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > +1 to idea of checklist.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > +1 to refactoring and documenting code
> > related
> > > > to
> > > > > > > ticket
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > >> > +/-20
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > LOC
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > least.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > If we start to do it as part of our
> regular
> > > > > > > > contribution,
> > > > > > > > > >> code
> > > > > > > > > >> > will
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > better, it would became common practice
> and
> > > part
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > Apache
> > > > > > > > > >> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > development culure.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > If we will hope we will have free time to
> > > submit
> > > > > > > > separate
> > > > > > > > > >> patch
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > someday
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > have patience to complete patch-submission
> > > > > process,
> > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > > >> will
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > remain
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > undocumented and poor-readable.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Sincerely,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > пт, 20 апр. 2018 г. в 18:56, Александр
> > > > Меньшиков <
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > sharplermc@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 4) Metrics.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > partially +1
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > It makes sense to have some minimal code
> > > > > coverage
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > >> > code in
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > PR.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IMHO.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Also, we can limit the cyclomatic
> > complexity
> > > > of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > >> code
> > > > > > > > > >> > in
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > PR
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > too.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 6) Refactoring
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > -1
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > I understand why people want to refactor
> > old
> > > > > code.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > But I think refactoring should be
> always a
> > > > > > separate
> > > > > > > > > task.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > And it's better to remove all
> refactoring
> > > from
> > > > > PR,
> > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > >> > not
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > sense
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > the issue.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 16:54 GMT+03:00 Andrey
> > Kuznetsov
> > > <
> > > > > > > > > >> > stkuzma@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > What about adding the following item
> to
> > > the
> > > > > > > > checklist:
> > > > > > > > > >> > when the
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > change
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > adds
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > new functionality, then unit tests
> > should
> > > > also
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > >> > provided, if
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > technically possible?
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > As for refactorings, in fact they are
> > > > strongly
> > > > > > > > > >> discouraged
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > today
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > unclear reason. Let's permit to make
> > > > > > refactorings
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > checklist
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > being
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > discussed. (Of cource, refactoring
> > should
> > > > > relate
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >> problem
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > being
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > solved.)
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 16:16 GMT+03:00 Vladimir
> > > Ozerov <
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > vozerov@gridgain.com
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ed,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately some of these points
> are
> > > not
> > > > > > good
> > > > > > > > > >> > candidates
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > for
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > checklist because of these:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > - It must be clear and disallow
> > > *multiple
> > > > > > > > > >> > interpretations*
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > - It must be *lightweight*,
> otherwise
> > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > >> development
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > would
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > become a
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > nightmare
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > We cannot have "nice to have" points
> > > here.
> > > > > > > > Checklist
> > > > > > > > > >> > should
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > answer
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > question "is ticket eligible to be
> > > > merged?"
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Code style.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > +1
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  2) Documentation
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -1, it is impossible to define what
> is
> > > > > > > > > >> > "well-documented". A
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > piece
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > could be obvious for one
> contributor,
> > > and
> > > > > > > > > non-obvious
> > > > > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > another.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > In
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > case this is not a blocker for
> merge.
> > > > > Instead,
> > > > > > > > > during
> > > > > > > > > >> > review
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > ask
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > implementer to add more docs, but it
> > > > cannot
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > forced.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  3) Logging
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -1, same problem - what is "enough
> > > > > logging?".
> > > > > > > > Enough
> > > > > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > whom?
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > How
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > understand whether it is enough or
> > not?
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  4) Metrics
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -1, no clear boundaries, and
> decision
> > on
> > > > > > whether
> > > > > > > > > >> metrics
> > > > > > > > > >> > are
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > added
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > not should be performed during
> design
> > > > phase.
> > > > > > As
> > > > > > > > > >> before,
> > > > > > > > > >> > it is
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > perfectly
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > valid to ask contributor to add
> > metrics
> > > > with
> > > > > > > clear
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > why,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > this is not part of the checklist.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5) TC status
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > +1, already mentioned
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  6) Refactoring
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Strong -1. OOP is a slippery slope,
> > > there
> > > > > are
> > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > good
> > > > > > > > > >> > and bad
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > receipts
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > all cases, hence it cannot be used
> in
> > a
> > > > > > > checklist.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > We can borrow useful rules from p.2,
> > p.3
> > > > and
> > > > > > p.4
> > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > >> you
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > clear
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > definitions on how to measure them.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Vladimir.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:50 PM,
> > Eduard
> > > > > > > > Shangareev <
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Also, I want to add some technical
> > > > > > > requirement.
> > > > > > > > > >> Let's
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > discuss
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > them.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Code style.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The code needs to be formatted
> > > according
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > coding
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > guidelines
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/
> > > > > > confluence/display/IGNITE/
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Coding+Guidelines
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > code must not contain TODOs
> without
> > a
> > > > > ticket
> > > > > > > > > >> reference.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > It is highly recommended to make
> > major
> > > > > > > > formatting
> > > > > > > > > >> > changes
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > in
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > existing
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > as a separate commit, to make
> review
> > > > > process
> > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > practical.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Documentation.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Added code should be
> > well-documented.
> > > > Any
> > > > > > > > methods
> > > > > > > > > >> that
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > raise
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > questions
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > regarding their code flow,
> > invariants,
> > > > > > > > > >> synchronization,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > etc.,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > must
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > documented with comprehensive
> > javadoc.
> > > > Any
> > > > > > > > > reviewer
> > > > > > > > > >> can
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > request
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > particular added method be
> > documented.
> > > > > Also,
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > is a
> > > > > > > > > >> > good
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > practice
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > document old code in a 10-20 lines
> > > > region
> > > > > > > around
> > > > > > > > > >> > changed
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > code.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 3) Logging.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Make sure that there are enough
> > > logging
> > > > > > added
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > >> every
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > category
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > possible diagnostic in field.
> Check
> > > that
> > > > > > > logging
> > > > > > > > > >> > messages
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > are
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > properly
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > spelled.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 4) Metrics.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Are there any metrics that need to
> > be
> > > > > > exposed
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >> user?
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 5) TC status.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Recheck that there are no new
> > failing
> > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 6) Refactoring.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The code should be better than
> > before:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - extract method from big one;
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - do anything else to make code
> > > > clearer
> > > > > > > > (don't
> > > > > > > > > >> > forget
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    OOP-practise, replace if-else
> > hell
> > > > with
> > > > > > > > > >> inheritance
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - split refactoring (renaming,
> > code
> > > > > > format)
> > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > >> > actual
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    separate commit
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:23 PM,
> > > Eduard
> > > > > > > > > Shangareev <
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, guys.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that we should update
> > > > > > maintainers
> > > > > > > > list
> > > > > > > > > >> > before
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > adding
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > review
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > requirement.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > There should not be the
> situation
> > > when
> > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > >> only
> > > > > > > > > >> > one
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > contributor
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > is responsible for a component.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > We already have issues with
> review
> > > > speed
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > >> response
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > time.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 2:17 PM,
> > > Anton
> > > > > > > > > Vinogradov
> > > > > > > > > >> <
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vova,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Everything you described sound
> > > good
> > > > to
> > > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to propose to create
> > > > special
> > > > > > page
> > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > AI
> > > > > > > > > >> > Wiki
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > describe
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > checklist.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case we'll find something
> > > should
> > > > be
> > > > > > > > > >> > changed/improved
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > it
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > update the page.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 0:53 GMT+03:00
> > Nikolay
> > > > > > Izhikov
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > nizhikov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Vladimir.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for seting up this
> > > > > > discussion.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As we discussed, I think an
> > > > > important
> > > > > > > part
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > >> > this
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > check
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > list
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > compatibility rules.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * What should be backward
> > > > > compatible?
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * How should we maintain it?
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) If ticket changes
> public
> > > API
> > > > or
> > > > > > > > > existing
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > behavior,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > least
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > two
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commiters should approve the
> > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can learn from other open
> > > > source
> > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > experience.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Apache Kafka [1], for
> example,
> > > > > > requires
> > > > > > > > > >> KIP(kafka
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > improvement
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > proposal)
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for *every* major change.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Major change definition
> > includes
> > > > > > public
> > > > > > > > API.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> https://cwiki.apache.org/
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > confluence/display/KAFKA/
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kafka+Improvement+Proposals
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > В Чт, 19/04/2018 в 23:00
> > +0300,
> > > > > > Vladimir
> > > > > > > > > >> Ozerov
> > > > > > > > > >> > пишет:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's glad to see our
> > community
> > > > > > becomes
> > > > > > > > > >> larger
> > > > > > > > > >> > every
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > day.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > grows
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes more and more
> > > difficult
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > manage
> > > > > > > > > >> > review and
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > processes
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > keep quality of our
> > decisions
> > > at
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > proper
> > > > > > > > > >> > level.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > More
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > contributors,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commits, more components
> > > > > interlinked
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > >> each
> > > > > > > > > >> > other
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > subtle
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > ways.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to propose to
> > > > setup a
> > > > > > > > formal
> > > > > > > > > >> > review
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > checklist.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be a
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > set of actions every
> > reviewer
> > > > > needs
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > check
> > > > > > > > > >> > before
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > approving
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of a
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > certain feature. Passing
> the
> > > > > > checklist
> > > > > > > > > >> would be
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > *necessary
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sufficient* phase before
> > > commit
> > > > > > could
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > >> added
> > > > > > > > > >> > to
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > main
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > branch.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > checklist would help us to
> > > > detect
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > lot
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > >> > common
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > problems
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > broken
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests or bad UX earlier,
> and
> > > > would
> > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > >> > contributors
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > lead
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > their
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > pull
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > requests to merge.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hallmarks of a good
> > checklist:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - It must be followed be
> > > > everyone
> > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > >> > exceptions
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - It must be clear and
> > > disallow
> > > > > > > multiple
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > interpretations
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - It must be lightweight,
> > > > > otherwise
> > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > development
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > become
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nightmare
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - It must be non-blocking,
> > > i.e.
> > > > > > > > > >> inacessibility
> > > > > > > > > >> > of a
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > single
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > contributor
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should not block ticket
> > > progress
> > > > > > > > forever.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please let me know if you
> > > think
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > idea
> > > > > > > > > >> makes
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > sense.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > agree
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > let's start defining
> action
> > > > items
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> > checklist.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > My
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 2
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > cents:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) All unit tests pass on
> TC
> > > > > without
> > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > >> > failures
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) If ticket targets
> > specific
> > > > > > > component,
> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > >> > should
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > be
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > reviewed
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > component's maintainer*
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) If ticket changes
> public
> > > API
> > > > or
> > > > > > > > > existing
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > behavior,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > least
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > two
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commiters should approve
> the
> > > > > changes
> > > > > > > **
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vladimir.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * TBD: Review component
> list
> > > and
> > > > > > > define
> > > > > > > > > >> > maintainers;
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > define
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > do if
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > maintainer is unavailable
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ** TBD: Define what is
> > "public
> > > > > API"
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >   Andrey Kuznetsov.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > --
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >   Andrey Kuznetsov.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > >   Andrey Kuznetsov.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > >   Andrey Kuznetsov.
> > >
> >
>

Re: Ticket review checklist

[Ilya Kasnacheev <il...@gmail.com>]

I don't think I quite understand how exception explanations should work.

Imagine we have the following exception:

// At least RuntimeException can be thrown by the code above when
GridCacheContext is cleaned and there is
// an attempt to use cleaned resources.
U.error(log, "Unexpected exception during cache update", e);

I mean, we genuinely don't know what happened here.

Under new rules, what kind of "workaround" would that exception suggest?
"Try turning it off and then back on"?
What explanation how to resolve this exception can we offer? "Please write
to dev@apache.ignite.org or to Apache JIRA, and then wait for a release
with fix?"

I'm really confused how we can implement 1.6 and 1.7 when dealing with
messy real-world code.

Regards,


-- 
Ilya Kasnacheev

2018-05-10 11:39 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>:

> Andrey, Anton, Alex
>
> Agree, *SHOULD* is more appropriate here.
>
> Please see latest version below. Does anyone want to add or change
> something? Let's wait for several days for more feedback and then publish
> and announce this list. Note that it would not be carved in stone and we
> will be able to change it at any time if needed.
>
> 1) API
> 1.1) API compatibility *MUST* be maintained between minor releases. Do not
> remove existing methods or change their signatures, deprecate them instead
> 1.2) Default behaviour "SHOULD NOT* be changed between minor releases,
> unless absolutely needed. If change is made, it *MUST* be described in
> "Migration Guide"
> 1.3) New operation *MUST* be well-documented in code (javadoc, dotnetdoc):
> documentation must contain method's purpose, description of parameters and
> how their values affect the outcome, description of return value and it's
> default, behavior in negative cases, interaction with other operations and
> components
> 1.4) API parity between Java and .NET platforms *SHOULD* be maintained when
> operation makes sense on both platforms. If method cannot be implemented in
> a platform immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be created and linked to
> current ticket
> 1.5) API parity between thin clients (Java, .NET) *SHOULD* be maintained
> when operation makes sense on several clients. If method cannot be
> implemented in a client immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be created and
> linked to current ticket
> 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user **SHOULD** have explanation how to
> resolve, workaround or debug an error
>
> 2) Compatibility
> 2.1) Persistence backward compatibility *MUST* be maintained between minor
> releases. It should be possible to start newer version on data files
> created by the previous version
> 2.2) Thin client forward and backward compatibility *SHOULD* be maintained
> between two consecutive minor releases. If compatibility cannot be
> maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
> 2.3) JDBC and ODBC forward and backward compatibility *SHOULD* be
> maintained between two consecutive minor releases. If compatibility cannot
> be maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
>
> 3) Tests
> 3.1) New functionality *MUST* be covered with unit tests for both positive
> and negative use cases
> 3.2) All test suites *MUST* be run before merge to master..There *MUST* be
> no new test failures
>
> 4) Code style *MUST* be followed as per Ignite's Coding Guidelines
>
> Vladimir.
>
>
> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 1:05 PM, Andrey Kuznetsov <st...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Anton,
> >
> > I agree, *MUST* for exception reasons and *SHOULD* for ways of resolution
> > sound clearer.
> >
> > 2018-05-08 12:56 GMT+03:00 Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> >
> > > Andrey,
> > >
> > > How about
> > > 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user *MUST* have explanation of
> > workaround
> > > and contain original error.
> > > All exceptions thrown to a user *SHOULD* have explanation how to
> resolve
> > if
> > > possible.
> > > ?
> > >
> > > вт, 8 мая 2018 г. в 12:26, Andrey Kuznetsov <st...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > > Vladimir, checklist looks pleasant enough for me.
> > > >
> > > > I'd like to suggest one minor change. In 1.6 *MUST* seems to be too
> > > strict,
> > > > *SHOULD* would be enough. It can be frustrating for API user if I
> > explain
> > > > how to fix NPEs in a trivial way, for example.
> > > >
> > > > 2018-05-08 11:34 GMT+03:00 Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > > >
> > > > > Alex,
> > > > >
> > > > > It is not sounds like that, obviously.
> > > > >
> > > > > Tests should cover all negative and positive cases.
> > > > > You should add enough tests to cover all cases.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sometimes one test can cover more than one case, so two tests *CAN*
> > > > > partially check same things.
> > > > > In case some cases already covered you should not create
> duplicates.
> > > > >
> > > > > вт, 8 мая 2018 г. в 10:19, Александр Меньшиков <
> sharplermc@gmail.com
> > >:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Vladimir, the 3.1 is a bit unclear for me. Which code coverage is
> > > > > > acceptable? Now it sounds like two tests are enough (one for
> > positive
> > > > and
> > > > > > one for negative cases).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2018-05-07 23:09 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > dsetrakyan@apache.org
> > > >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Is this list on the Wiki?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 7:26 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > > vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This is the checklist I have at the moment. Please let me
> know
> > if
> > > > you
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > any comments on existing items, or want to add or remove
> > > anything.
> > > > It
> > > > > > > looks
> > > > > > > > like we may have not only strict rules, but *nice to have*
> > points
> > > > > here
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > well with help of *MUST*, *SHOULD* and *MAY* words as per
> > RFC2119
> > > > > [1].
> > > > > > So
> > > > > > > > please feel free to suggest optional items as well.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 1) API
> > > > > > > > 1.1) API compatibility *MUST* be maintained between minor
> > > releases.
> > > > > Do
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > remove existing methods or change their signatures, deprecate
> > > them
> > > > > > > instead
> > > > > > > > 1.2) Default behaviour "SHOULD NOT* be changed between minor
> > > > > releases,
> > > > > > > > unless absolutely needed. If change is made, it *MUST* be
> > > described
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > "Migration Guide"
> > > > > > > > 1.3) New operation *MUST* be well-documented in code
> (javadoc,
> > > > > > > dotnetdoc):
> > > > > > > > documentation must contain method's purpose, description of
> > > > > parameters
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > how their values affect the outcome, description of return
> > value
> > > > and
> > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > default, behavior in negative cases, interaction with other
> > > > > operations
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > components
> > > > > > > > 1.4) API parity between Java and .NET platforms *SHOULD* be
> > > > > maintained
> > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > operation makes sense on both platforms. If method cannot be
> > > > > > implemented
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > a platform immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be created and
> > > > linked
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > current ticket
> > > > > > > > 1.5) API parity between thin clients (Java, .NET) *SHOULD* be
> > > > > > maintained
> > > > > > > > when operation makes sense on several clients. If method
> cannot
> > > be
> > > > > > > > implemented in a client immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST*
> be
> > > > > created
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > linked to current ticket
> > > > > > > > 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user *MUST* have explanation
> > how
> > > to
> > > > > > > > resolve, workaround or debug an error
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2) Compatibility
> > > > > > > > 2.1) Persistence backward compatibility *MUST* be maintained
> > > > between
> > > > > > > minor
> > > > > > > > releases. It should be possible to start newer version on
> data
> > > > files
> > > > > > > > created by the previous version
> > > > > > > > 2.2) Thin client forward and backward compatibility *SHOULD*
> be
> > > > > > > maintained
> > > > > > > > between two consecutive minor releases. If compatibility
> cannot
> > > be
> > > > > > > > maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
> > > > > > > > 2.3) JDBC and ODBC forward and backward compatibility
> *SHOULD*
> > be
> > > > > > > > maintained between two consecutive minor releases. If
> > > compatibility
> > > > > > > cannot
> > > > > > > > be maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 3) Tests
> > > > > > > > 3.1) New functionality *MUST* be covered with unit tests for
> > both
> > > > > > > positive
> > > > > > > > and negative use cases
> > > > > > > > 3.2) All test suites *MUST* be run before merge to
> > master..There
> > > > > *MUST*
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > no new test failures
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 4) Code style *MUST* be followed as per Ignite's Coding
> > > Guidelines
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Vladimir.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [1] https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > > > vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi Dmitry,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Yes, I'll do that in the nearest days.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <
> > > > > > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> Igniters, the idea was related to small refactorings
> > > co-located
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > > main
> > > > > > > > >> change.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Main change itself indicates that existing code did not
> meet
> > > the
> > > > > > > > criteria
> > > > > > > > >> of practice. Approving of standalone refactorings instead
> > > > > > contradicts
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > >> principle don't touch if it works. So I still like idea of
> > > > > > co-located
> > > > > > > > >> changes improving code, javadocs, style, etc.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> But let's not argue about this point now, let's summarize
> > the
> > > > > > > undisputed
> > > > > > > > >> points and add it to the wiki. Vladimir, would you please
> do
> > > it?
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> ср, 25 апр. 2018 г. в 16:42, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > nizhikov@apache.org
> > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > I agree with Vova.
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > Don't fix if it works!
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > If you 100% sure then it a useful addition to the
> product
> > -
> > > > just
> > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > >> > separate ticket.
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > В Ср, 25/04/2018 в 11:44 +0300, Vladimir Ozerov пишет:
> > > > > > > > >> > > Guys,
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > The problem with in-place refactorings is that you
> > > increase
> > > > > > > affected
> > > > > > > > >> > scope.
> > > > > > > > >> > > It is not uncommon to break compatibility or public
> > > > contracts
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > >> even
> > > > > > > > >> > > minor things. E.g. recently we decided drop org.jsr166
> > > > package
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > >> favor
> > > > > > > > >> > of
> > > > > > > > >> > > Java 8 classes. Innocent change. Result - broken
> > storage.
> > > > > > Another
> > > > > > > > >> problem
> > > > > > > > >> > > is conflicts. It is not uncommon to have long-lived
> > > branches
> > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > >> > need
> > > > > > > > >> > > to merge with master over and over again. And a lot of
> > > > > > > refactorings
> > > > > > > > >> cause
> > > > > > > > >> > > conflicts. It is much easier to resolve them if you
> know
> > > > that
> > > > > > > logic
> > > > > > > > >> was
> > > > > > > > >> > not
> > > > > > > > >> > > affected as opposed to cases when you need to resolve
> > both
> > > > > > renames
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> > > method extractions along with business-logic changes.
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > I'd like to repeat - if you have a time for
> refactoring
> > > then
> > > > > you
> > > > > > > > >> > definitely
> > > > > > > > >> > > have a time to extract these changes to separate PR
> and
> > > > > submit a
> > > > > > > > >> separate
> > > > > > > > >> > > ticket. I am quite understand what "low priority" do
> you
> > > > mean
> > > > > if
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > >> do
> > > > > > > > >> > > refactorings on your own.
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 10:52 PM, Andrey Kuznetsov <
> > > > > > > > stkuzma@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > +1.
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > Once again, I beg for "small refactoring permission"
> > in
> > > a
> > > > > > > > checklist.
> > > > > > > > >> > As of
> > > > > > > > >> > > > today, separate tickets for small refactorings has
> > > lowest
> > > > > > > > priority,
> > > > > > > > >> > since
> > > > > > > > >> > > > they neither fix any flaw nor add new functionality.
> > > Also,
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > attempts to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > make issue-related code safer / cleaner / more
> > readable
> > > in
> > > > > > > "real"
> > > > > > > > >> pull
> > > > > > > > >> > > > requests are typically rejected, since they
> contradict
> > > our
> > > > > > > current
> > > > > > > > >> > > > guidelines.
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > I understand this will require a bit more effort
> from
> > > > > > > > >> > committer/maintainer,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > but otherwise we will get constantly degrading code
> > > > quality.
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > 2018-04-24 18:52 GMT+03:00 Eduard Shangareev <
> > > > > > > > >> > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > :
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Vladimir,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > I am not talking about massive/sophisticated
> > > > refactoring.
> > > > > > But
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > >> > believe
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > that ask to extract some methods should be OK to
> do
> > > > > without
> > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > >> extra
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > ticket.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > A checklist shouldn't be necessarily a set of
> > certain
> > > > > rules
> > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > >> also
> > > > > > > > >> > it
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > could include suggestion and reminders.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 6:39 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > > > > > > >> > vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Ed,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Refactoring is a separate task. If you would
> like
> > to
> > > > > > rework
> > > > > > > > >> > exchange
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > future
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > - please do this in a ticket "Refactor exchange
> > > task",
> > > > > > > nobody
> > > > > > > > >> would
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > against
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > this. This is just a matter of creating separate
> > > > ticket
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> > separate
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > PR.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > If
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > one have a time for refactoring, it should not
> be
> > a
> > > > > > problem
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > >> > him to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > spend several minutes on JIRA and GitHub.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > As far as documentation - what you describe is
> > > normal
> > > > > > review
> > > > > > > > >> > process,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > when
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > reviewer might want to ask contributor to fix
> > > > something.
> > > > > > > > >> Checklist
> > > > > > > > >> > is a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > different thing - this is a set of rules which
> > must
> > > be
> > > > > > > > followed
> > > > > > > > >> by
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > anyone.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > I do not understand how you can define
> > documentation
> > > > in
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > >> > checklist.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Same problem with logging - what is "enough"?
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Eduard
> > Shangareev <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I don't understand why you are so against
> > > > refactoring.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Code already smells like hell. Methods 200+
> line
> > > is
> > > > > > > normal.
> > > > > > > > >> > Exchange
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > future
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > is asking to be separated on several one.
> > > > Transaction
> > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > >> could
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > understand
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > few people.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > If we separate refactoring from development it
> > > would
> > > > > > mean
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > >> > no one
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > do it.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > 2) Documentation.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Everything which was asked by reviewers to
> > clarify
> > > > > idea
> > > > > > > > >> should be
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > reflected
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > in the code.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > 3) Logging.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Logging should be enough to troubleshoot the
> > > problem
> > > > > if
> > > > > > > > >> someone
> > > > > > > > >> > comes
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > user-list with an issue in the code.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 7:06 PM, Dmitry
> Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > +1 to idea of checklist.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > +1 to refactoring and documenting code
> related
> > > to
> > > > > > ticket
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > >> > +/-20
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > LOC
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > least.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > If we start to do it as part of our regular
> > > > > > > contribution,
> > > > > > > > >> code
> > > > > > > > >> > will
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > better, it would became common practice and
> > part
> > > > of
> > > > > > > Apache
> > > > > > > > >> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > development culure.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > If we will hope we will have free time to
> > submit
> > > > > > > separate
> > > > > > > > >> patch
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > someday
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > have patience to complete patch-submission
> > > > process,
> > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > >> will
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > remain
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > undocumented and poor-readable.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Sincerely,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > пт, 20 апр. 2018 г. в 18:56, Александр
> > > Меньшиков <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > sharplermc@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 4) Metrics.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > partially +1
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > It makes sense to have some minimal code
> > > > coverage
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > >> > code in
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > PR.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IMHO.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Also, we can limit the cyclomatic
> complexity
> > > of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > >> code
> > > > > > > > >> > in
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > PR
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > too.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 6) Refactoring
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > -1
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > I understand why people want to refactor
> old
> > > > code.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > But I think refactoring should be always a
> > > > > separate
> > > > > > > > task.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > And it's better to remove all refactoring
> > from
> > > > PR,
> > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > >> > not
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > sense
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > the issue.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 16:54 GMT+03:00 Andrey
> Kuznetsov
> > <
> > > > > > > > >> > stkuzma@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > What about adding the following item to
> > the
> > > > > > > checklist:
> > > > > > > > >> > when the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > change
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > adds
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > new functionality, then unit tests
> should
> > > also
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > >> > provided, if
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > technically possible?
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > As for refactorings, in fact they are
> > > strongly
> > > > > > > > >> discouraged
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > today
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > unclear reason. Let's permit to make
> > > > > refactorings
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > checklist
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > being
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > discussed. (Of cource, refactoring
> should
> > > > relate
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> problem
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > being
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > solved.)
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 16:16 GMT+03:00 Vladimir
> > Ozerov <
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > vozerov@gridgain.com
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ed,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately some of these points are
> > not
> > > > > good
> > > > > > > > >> > candidates
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > for
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > checklist because of these:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > - It must be clear and disallow
> > *multiple
> > > > > > > > >> > interpretations*
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > - It must be *lightweight*, otherwise
> > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > >> development
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > would
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > become a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > nightmare
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > We cannot have "nice to have" points
> > here.
> > > > > > > Checklist
> > > > > > > > >> > should
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > answer
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > question "is ticket eligible to be
> > > merged?"
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Code style.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > +1
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  2) Documentation
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -1, it is impossible to define what is
> > > > > > > > >> > "well-documented". A
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > piece
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > could be obvious for one contributor,
> > and
> > > > > > > > non-obvious
> > > > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > another.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > In
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > case this is not a blocker for merge.
> > > > Instead,
> > > > > > > > during
> > > > > > > > >> > review
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > one
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > ask
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > implementer to add more docs, but it
> > > cannot
> > > > be
> > > > > > > > forced.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  3) Logging
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -1, same problem - what is "enough
> > > > logging?".
> > > > > > > Enough
> > > > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > whom?
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > How
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > understand whether it is enough or
> not?
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  4) Metrics
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -1, no clear boundaries, and decision
> on
> > > > > whether
> > > > > > > > >> metrics
> > > > > > > > >> > are
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > added
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > not should be performed during design
> > > phase.
> > > > > As
> > > > > > > > >> before,
> > > > > > > > >> > it is
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > perfectly
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > valid to ask contributor to add
> metrics
> > > with
> > > > > > clear
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > why,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > this is not part of the checklist.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5) TC status
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > +1, already mentioned
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  6) Refactoring
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Strong -1. OOP is a slippery slope,
> > there
> > > > are
> > > > > no
> > > > > > > > good
> > > > > > > > >> > and bad
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > receipts
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > all cases, hence it cannot be used in
> a
> > > > > > checklist.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > We can borrow useful rules from p.2,
> p.3
> > > and
> > > > > p.4
> > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > >> you
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > provide
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > clear
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > definitions on how to measure them.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Vladimir.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:50 PM,
> Eduard
> > > > > > > Shangareev <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Also, I want to add some technical
> > > > > > requirement.
> > > > > > > > >> Let's
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > discuss
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > them.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Code style.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The code needs to be formatted
> > according
> > > > to
> > > > > > > coding
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > guidelines
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/
> > > > > confluence/display/IGNITE/
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Coding+Guidelines
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > code must not contain TODOs without
> a
> > > > ticket
> > > > > > > > >> reference.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > It is highly recommended to make
> major
> > > > > > > formatting
> > > > > > > > >> > changes
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > in
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > existing
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > as a separate commit, to make review
> > > > process
> > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > practical.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Documentation.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Added code should be
> well-documented.
> > > Any
> > > > > > > methods
> > > > > > > > >> that
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > raise
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > questions
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > regarding their code flow,
> invariants,
> > > > > > > > >> synchronization,
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > etc.,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > must
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > documented with comprehensive
> javadoc.
> > > Any
> > > > > > > > reviewer
> > > > > > > > >> can
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > request
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > particular added method be
> documented.
> > > > Also,
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > is a
> > > > > > > > >> > good
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > practice
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > document old code in a 10-20 lines
> > > region
> > > > > > around
> > > > > > > > >> > changed
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > code.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 3) Logging.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Make sure that there are enough
> > logging
> > > > > added
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > >> every
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > category
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > possible diagnostic in field. Check
> > that
> > > > > > logging
> > > > > > > > >> > messages
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > are
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > properly
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > spelled.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 4) Metrics.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Are there any metrics that need to
> be
> > > > > exposed
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> user?
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 5) TC status.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Recheck that there are no new
> failing
> > > > tests
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 6) Refactoring.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The code should be better than
> before:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - extract method from big one;
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - do anything else to make code
> > > clearer
> > > > > > > (don't
> > > > > > > > >> > forget
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > about
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    OOP-practise, replace if-else
> hell
> > > with
> > > > > > > > >> inheritance
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - split refactoring (renaming,
> code
> > > > > format)
> > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > >> > actual
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    separate commit
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:23 PM,
> > Eduard
> > > > > > > > Shangareev <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, guys.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that we should update
> > > > > maintainers
> > > > > > > list
> > > > > > > > >> > before
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > adding
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > review
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > requirement.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > There should not be the situation
> > when
> > > > > there
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >> only
> > > > > > > > >> > one
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > contributor
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > is responsible for a component.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > We already have issues with review
> > > speed
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> response
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > time.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 2:17 PM,
> > Anton
> > > > > > > > Vinogradov
> > > > > > > > >> <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vova,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Everything you described sound
> > good
> > > to
> > > > > me.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to propose to create
> > > special
> > > > > page
> > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > AI
> > > > > > > > >> > Wiki
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > describe
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > checklist.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case we'll find something
> > should
> > > be
> > > > > > > > >> > changed/improved
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > it
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > update the page.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 0:53 GMT+03:00
> Nikolay
> > > > > Izhikov
> > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > nizhikov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Vladimir.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for seting up this
> > > > > discussion.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As we discussed, I think an
> > > > important
> > > > > > part
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > >> > this
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > check
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > list
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > compatibility rules.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * What should be backward
> > > > compatible?
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * How should we maintain it?
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) If ticket changes public
> > API
> > > or
> > > > > > > > existing
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > behavior,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > at
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > least
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > two
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commiters should approve the
> > > changes
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can learn from other open
> > > source
> > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > experience.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Apache Kafka [1], for example,
> > > > > requires
> > > > > > > > >> KIP(kafka
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > improvement
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > proposal)
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for *every* major change.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Major change definition
> includes
> > > > > public
> > > > > > > API.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > confluence/display/KAFKA/
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kafka+Improvement+Proposals
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > В Чт, 19/04/2018 в 23:00
> +0300,
> > > > > Vladimir
> > > > > > > > >> Ozerov
> > > > > > > > >> > пишет:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's glad to see our
> community
> > > > > becomes
> > > > > > > > >> larger
> > > > > > > > >> > every
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > day.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > grows
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes more and more
> > difficult
> > > to
> > > > > > > manage
> > > > > > > > >> > review and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > processes
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > keep quality of our
> decisions
> > at
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > proper
> > > > > > > > >> > level.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > More
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > contributors,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commits, more components
> > > > interlinked
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > >> each
> > > > > > > > >> > other
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > subtle
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > ways.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to propose to
> > > setup a
> > > > > > > formal
> > > > > > > > >> > review
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > checklist.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > set of actions every
> reviewer
> > > > needs
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > check
> > > > > > > > >> > before
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > approving
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > certain feature. Passing the
> > > > > checklist
> > > > > > > > >> would be
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > *necessary
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sufficient* phase before
> > commit
> > > > > could
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > >> added
> > > > > > > > >> > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > main
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > branch.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > checklist would help us to
> > > detect
> > > > a
> > > > > > lot
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > >> > common
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > problems
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > broken
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests or bad UX earlier, and
> > > would
> > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > >> > contributors
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > lead
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > their
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > pull
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > requests to merge.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hallmarks of a good
> checklist:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - It must be followed be
> > > everyone
> > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > >> > exceptions
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - It must be clear and
> > disallow
> > > > > > multiple
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > interpretations
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - It must be lightweight,
> > > > otherwise
> > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > development
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > become
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nightmare
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - It must be non-blocking,
> > i.e.
> > > > > > > > >> inacessibility
> > > > > > > > >> > of a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > single
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > contributor
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should not block ticket
> > progress
> > > > > > > forever.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please let me know if you
> > think
> > > > the
> > > > > > idea
> > > > > > > > >> makes
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > sense.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > If
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > agree
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > let's start defining action
> > > items
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > checklist.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > My
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 2
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > cents:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) All unit tests pass on TC
> > > > without
> > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > >> > failures
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) If ticket targets
> specific
> > > > > > component,
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > >> > should
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > be
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > reviewed
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > component's maintainer*
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) If ticket changes public
> > API
> > > or
> > > > > > > > existing
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > behavior,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > at
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > least
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > two
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commiters should approve the
> > > > changes
> > > > > > **
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vladimir.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * TBD: Review component list
> > and
> > > > > > define
> > > > > > > > >> > maintainers;
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > define
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > do if
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > maintainer is unavailable
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ** TBD: Define what is
> "public
> > > > API"
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >   Andrey Kuznetsov.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > --
> > > > > > > > >> > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > >> > > >   Andrey Kuznetsov.
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best regards,
> > > >   Andrey Kuznetsov.
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> >   Andrey Kuznetsov.
> >
>

Re: Ticket review checklist

[Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>]

Andrey, Anton, Alex

Agree, *SHOULD* is more appropriate here.

Please see latest version below. Does anyone want to add or change
something? Let's wait for several days for more feedback and then publish
and announce this list. Note that it would not be carved in stone and we
will be able to change it at any time if needed.

1) API
1.1) API compatibility *MUST* be maintained between minor releases. Do not
remove existing methods or change their signatures, deprecate them instead
1.2) Default behaviour "SHOULD NOT* be changed between minor releases,
unless absolutely needed. If change is made, it *MUST* be described in
"Migration Guide"
1.3) New operation *MUST* be well-documented in code (javadoc, dotnetdoc):
documentation must contain method's purpose, description of parameters and
how their values affect the outcome, description of return value and it's
default, behavior in negative cases, interaction with other operations and
components
1.4) API parity between Java and .NET platforms *SHOULD* be maintained when
operation makes sense on both platforms. If method cannot be implemented in
a platform immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be created and linked to
current ticket
1.5) API parity between thin clients (Java, .NET) *SHOULD* be maintained
when operation makes sense on several clients. If method cannot be
implemented in a client immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be created and
linked to current ticket
1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user **SHOULD** have explanation how to
resolve, workaround or debug an error

2) Compatibility
2.1) Persistence backward compatibility *MUST* be maintained between minor
releases. It should be possible to start newer version on data files
created by the previous version
2.2) Thin client forward and backward compatibility *SHOULD* be maintained
between two consecutive minor releases. If compatibility cannot be
maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
2.3) JDBC and ODBC forward and backward compatibility *SHOULD* be
maintained between two consecutive minor releases. If compatibility cannot
be maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"

3) Tests
3.1) New functionality *MUST* be covered with unit tests for both positive
and negative use cases
3.2) All test suites *MUST* be run before merge to master..There *MUST* be
no new test failures

4) Code style *MUST* be followed as per Ignite's Coding Guidelines

Vladimir.


On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 1:05 PM, Andrey Kuznetsov <st...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Anton,
>
> I agree, *MUST* for exception reasons and *SHOULD* for ways of resolution
> sound clearer.
>
> 2018-05-08 12:56 GMT+03:00 Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
>
> > Andrey,
> >
> > How about
> > 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user *MUST* have explanation of
> workaround
> > and contain original error.
> > All exceptions thrown to a user *SHOULD* have explanation how to resolve
> if
> > possible.
> > ?
> >
> > вт, 8 мая 2018 г. в 12:26, Andrey Kuznetsov <st...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > Vladimir, checklist looks pleasant enough for me.
> > >
> > > I'd like to suggest one minor change. In 1.6 *MUST* seems to be too
> > strict,
> > > *SHOULD* would be enough. It can be frustrating for API user if I
> explain
> > > how to fix NPEs in a trivial way, for example.
> > >
> > > 2018-05-08 11:34 GMT+03:00 Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > >
> > > > Alex,
> > > >
> > > > It is not sounds like that, obviously.
> > > >
> > > > Tests should cover all negative and positive cases.
> > > > You should add enough tests to cover all cases.
> > > >
> > > > Sometimes one test can cover more than one case, so two tests *CAN*
> > > > partially check same things.
> > > > In case some cases already covered you should not create duplicates.
> > > >
> > > > вт, 8 мая 2018 г. в 10:19, Александр Меньшиков <sharplermc@gmail.com
> >:
> > > >
> > > > > Vladimir, the 3.1 is a bit unclear for me. Which code coverage is
> > > > > acceptable? Now it sounds like two tests are enough (one for
> positive
> > > and
> > > > > one for negative cases).
> > > > >
> > > > > 2018-05-07 23:09 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> dsetrakyan@apache.org
> > >:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Is this list on the Wiki?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 7:26 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is the checklist I have at the moment. Please let me know
> if
> > > you
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > any comments on existing items, or want to add or remove
> > anything.
> > > It
> > > > > > looks
> > > > > > > like we may have not only strict rules, but *nice to have*
> points
> > > > here
> > > > > as
> > > > > > > well with help of *MUST*, *SHOULD* and *MAY* words as per
> RFC2119
> > > > [1].
> > > > > So
> > > > > > > please feel free to suggest optional items as well.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1) API
> > > > > > > 1.1) API compatibility *MUST* be maintained between minor
> > releases.
> > > > Do
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > > remove existing methods or change their signatures, deprecate
> > them
> > > > > > instead
> > > > > > > 1.2) Default behaviour "SHOULD NOT* be changed between minor
> > > > releases,
> > > > > > > unless absolutely needed. If change is made, it *MUST* be
> > described
> > > > in
> > > > > > > "Migration Guide"
> > > > > > > 1.3) New operation *MUST* be well-documented in code (javadoc,
> > > > > > dotnetdoc):
> > > > > > > documentation must contain method's purpose, description of
> > > > parameters
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > how their values affect the outcome, description of return
> value
> > > and
> > > > > it's
> > > > > > > default, behavior in negative cases, interaction with other
> > > > operations
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > components
> > > > > > > 1.4) API parity between Java and .NET platforms *SHOULD* be
> > > > maintained
> > > > > > when
> > > > > > > operation makes sense on both platforms. If method cannot be
> > > > > implemented
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > a platform immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be created and
> > > linked
> > > > to
> > > > > > > current ticket
> > > > > > > 1.5) API parity between thin clients (Java, .NET) *SHOULD* be
> > > > > maintained
> > > > > > > when operation makes sense on several clients. If method cannot
> > be
> > > > > > > implemented in a client immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be
> > > > created
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > linked to current ticket
> > > > > > > 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user *MUST* have explanation
> how
> > to
> > > > > > > resolve, workaround or debug an error
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2) Compatibility
> > > > > > > 2.1) Persistence backward compatibility *MUST* be maintained
> > > between
> > > > > > minor
> > > > > > > releases. It should be possible to start newer version on data
> > > files
> > > > > > > created by the previous version
> > > > > > > 2.2) Thin client forward and backward compatibility *SHOULD* be
> > > > > > maintained
> > > > > > > between two consecutive minor releases. If compatibility cannot
> > be
> > > > > > > maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
> > > > > > > 2.3) JDBC and ODBC forward and backward compatibility *SHOULD*
> be
> > > > > > > maintained between two consecutive minor releases. If
> > compatibility
> > > > > > cannot
> > > > > > > be maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 3) Tests
> > > > > > > 3.1) New functionality *MUST* be covered with unit tests for
> both
> > > > > > positive
> > > > > > > and negative use cases
> > > > > > > 3.2) All test suites *MUST* be run before merge to
> master..There
> > > > *MUST*
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > no new test failures
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 4) Code style *MUST* be followed as per Ignite's Coding
> > Guidelines
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Vladimir.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [1] https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > > vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Dmitry,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yes, I'll do that in the nearest days.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <
> > > > > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> Igniters, the idea was related to small refactorings
> > co-located
> > > > with
> > > > > > > main
> > > > > > > >> change.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Main change itself indicates that existing code did not meet
> > the
> > > > > > > criteria
> > > > > > > >> of practice. Approving of standalone refactorings instead
> > > > > contradicts
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > >> principle don't touch if it works. So I still like idea of
> > > > > co-located
> > > > > > > >> changes improving code, javadocs, style, etc.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> But let's not argue about this point now, let's summarize
> the
> > > > > > undisputed
> > > > > > > >> points and add it to the wiki. Vladimir, would you please do
> > it?
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> ср, 25 апр. 2018 г. в 16:42, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > nizhikov@apache.org
> > > > >:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > Igniters,
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > I agree with Vova.
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > Don't fix if it works!
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > If you 100% sure then it a useful addition to the product
> -
> > > just
> > > > > > make
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > >> > separate ticket.
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > В Ср, 25/04/2018 в 11:44 +0300, Vladimir Ozerov пишет:
> > > > > > > >> > > Guys,
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > The problem with in-place refactorings is that you
> > increase
> > > > > > affected
> > > > > > > >> > scope.
> > > > > > > >> > > It is not uncommon to break compatibility or public
> > > contracts
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > >> even
> > > > > > > >> > > minor things. E.g. recently we decided drop org.jsr166
> > > package
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > >> favor
> > > > > > > >> > of
> > > > > > > >> > > Java 8 classes. Innocent change. Result - broken
> storage.
> > > > > Another
> > > > > > > >> problem
> > > > > > > >> > > is conflicts. It is not uncommon to have long-lived
> > branches
> > > > > which
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > >> > need
> > > > > > > >> > > to merge with master over and over again. And a lot of
> > > > > > refactorings
> > > > > > > >> cause
> > > > > > > >> > > conflicts. It is much easier to resolve them if you know
> > > that
> > > > > > logic
> > > > > > > >> was
> > > > > > > >> > not
> > > > > > > >> > > affected as opposed to cases when you need to resolve
> both
> > > > > renames
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > >> > > method extractions along with business-logic changes.
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > I'd like to repeat - if you have a time for refactoring
> > then
> > > > you
> > > > > > > >> > definitely
> > > > > > > >> > > have a time to extract these changes to separate PR and
> > > > submit a
> > > > > > > >> separate
> > > > > > > >> > > ticket. I am quite understand what "low priority" do you
> > > mean
> > > > if
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > >> do
> > > > > > > >> > > refactorings on your own.
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 10:52 PM, Andrey Kuznetsov <
> > > > > > > stkuzma@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > +1.
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > Once again, I beg for "small refactoring permission"
> in
> > a
> > > > > > > checklist.
> > > > > > > >> > As of
> > > > > > > >> > > > today, separate tickets for small refactorings has
> > lowest
> > > > > > > priority,
> > > > > > > >> > since
> > > > > > > >> > > > they neither fix any flaw nor add new functionality.
> > Also,
> > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > attempts to
> > > > > > > >> > > > make issue-related code safer / cleaner / more
> readable
> > in
> > > > > > "real"
> > > > > > > >> pull
> > > > > > > >> > > > requests are typically rejected, since they contradict
> > our
> > > > > > current
> > > > > > > >> > > > guidelines.
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > I understand this will require a bit more effort from
> > > > > > > >> > committer/maintainer,
> > > > > > > >> > > > but otherwise we will get constantly degrading code
> > > quality.
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > 2018-04-24 18:52 GMT+03:00 Eduard Shangareev <
> > > > > > > >> > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >> > > > > :
> > > > > > > >> > > > > Vladimir,
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > I am not talking about massive/sophisticated
> > > refactoring.
> > > > > But
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > >> > believe
> > > > > > > >> > > > > that ask to extract some methods should be OK to do
> > > > without
> > > > > an
> > > > > > > >> extra
> > > > > > > >> > > > > ticket.
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > A checklist shouldn't be necessarily a set of
> certain
> > > > rules
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > > >> also
> > > > > > > >> > it
> > > > > > > >> > > > > could include suggestion and reminders.
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 6:39 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > > > > > >> > vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Ed,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Refactoring is a separate task. If you would like
> to
> > > > > rework
> > > > > > > >> > exchange
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > future
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > - please do this in a ticket "Refactor exchange
> > task",
> > > > > > nobody
> > > > > > > >> would
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > against
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > this. This is just a matter of creating separate
> > > ticket
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > >> > separate
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > PR.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > If
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > one have a time for refactoring, it should not be
> a
> > > > > problem
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > >> > him to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > spend several minutes on JIRA and GitHub.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > As far as documentation - what you describe is
> > normal
> > > > > review
> > > > > > > >> > process,
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > when
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > reviewer might want to ask contributor to fix
> > > something.
> > > > > > > >> Checklist
> > > > > > > >> > is a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > different thing - this is a set of rules which
> must
> > be
> > > > > > > followed
> > > > > > > >> by
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > anyone.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > I do not understand how you can define
> documentation
> > > in
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > >> > checklist.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Same problem with logging - what is "enough"?
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Eduard
> Shangareev <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I don't understand why you are so against
> > > refactoring.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Code already smells like hell. Methods 200+ line
> > is
> > > > > > normal.
> > > > > > > >> > Exchange
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > future
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > is asking to be separated on several one.
> > > Transaction
> > > > > code
> > > > > > > >> could
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > understand
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > few people.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > If we separate refactoring from development it
> > would
> > > > > mean
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > >> > no one
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > do it.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > 2) Documentation.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Everything which was asked by reviewers to
> clarify
> > > > idea
> > > > > > > >> should be
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > reflected
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > in the code.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > 3) Logging.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Logging should be enough to troubleshoot the
> > problem
> > > > if
> > > > > > > >> someone
> > > > > > > >> > comes
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > user-list with an issue in the code.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 7:06 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > +1 to idea of checklist.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > +1 to refactoring and documenting code related
> > to
> > > > > ticket
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > >> > +/-20
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > LOC
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > at
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > least.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > If we start to do it as part of our regular
> > > > > > contribution,
> > > > > > > >> code
> > > > > > > >> > will
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > be
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > better, it would became common practice and
> part
> > > of
> > > > > > Apache
> > > > > > > >> > Ignite
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > development culure.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > If we will hope we will have free time to
> submit
> > > > > > separate
> > > > > > > >> patch
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > someday
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > have patience to complete patch-submission
> > > process,
> > > > > code
> > > > > > > >> will
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > remain
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > undocumented and poor-readable.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Sincerely,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > пт, 20 апр. 2018 г. в 18:56, Александр
> > Меньшиков <
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > sharplermc@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 4) Metrics.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > partially +1
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > It makes sense to have some minimal code
> > > coverage
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > >> > code in
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > PR.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IMHO.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Also, we can limit the cyclomatic complexity
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > > new
> > > > > > > >> code
> > > > > > > >> > in
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > PR
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > too.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 6) Refactoring
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > -1
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > I understand why people want to refactor old
> > > code.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > But I think refactoring should be always a
> > > > separate
> > > > > > > task.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > And it's better to remove all refactoring
> from
> > > PR,
> > > > > if
> > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > >> > not
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > sense
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > the issue.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 16:54 GMT+03:00 Andrey Kuznetsov
> <
> > > > > > > >> > stkuzma@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > What about adding the following item to
> the
> > > > > > checklist:
> > > > > > > >> > when the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > change
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > adds
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > new functionality, then unit tests should
> > also
> > > > be
> > > > > > > >> > provided, if
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > it's
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > technically possible?
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > As for refactorings, in fact they are
> > strongly
> > > > > > > >> discouraged
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > today
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > unclear reason. Let's permit to make
> > > > refactorings
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > checklist
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > being
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > discussed. (Of cource, refactoring should
> > > relate
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> problem
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > being
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > solved.)
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 16:16 GMT+03:00 Vladimir
> Ozerov <
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > vozerov@gridgain.com
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > :
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ed,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately some of these points are
> not
> > > > good
> > > > > > > >> > candidates
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > for
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > checklist because of these:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > - It must be clear and disallow
> *multiple
> > > > > > > >> > interpretations*
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > - It must be *lightweight*, otherwise
> > Ignite
> > > > > > > >> development
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > would
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > become a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > nightmare
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > We cannot have "nice to have" points
> here.
> > > > > > Checklist
> > > > > > > >> > should
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > answer
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > question "is ticket eligible to be
> > merged?"
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Code style.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > +1
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  2) Documentation
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -1, it is impossible to define what is
> > > > > > > >> > "well-documented". A
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > piece
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > could be obvious for one contributor,
> and
> > > > > > > non-obvious
> > > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > another.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > In
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > case this is not a blocker for merge.
> > > Instead,
> > > > > > > during
> > > > > > > >> > review
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > one
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > ask
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > implementer to add more docs, but it
> > cannot
> > > be
> > > > > > > forced.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  3) Logging
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -1, same problem - what is "enough
> > > logging?".
> > > > > > Enough
> > > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > whom?
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > How
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > understand whether it is enough or not?
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  4) Metrics
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -1, no clear boundaries, and decision on
> > > > whether
> > > > > > > >> metrics
> > > > > > > >> > are
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > added
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > not should be performed during design
> > phase.
> > > > As
> > > > > > > >> before,
> > > > > > > >> > it is
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > perfectly
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > valid to ask contributor to add metrics
> > with
> > > > > clear
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > explanation
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > why,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > this is not part of the checklist.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5) TC status
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > +1, already mentioned
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  6) Refactoring
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Strong -1. OOP is a slippery slope,
> there
> > > are
> > > > no
> > > > > > > good
> > > > > > > >> > and bad
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > receipts
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > all cases, hence it cannot be used in a
> > > > > checklist.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > We can borrow useful rules from p.2, p.3
> > and
> > > > p.4
> > > > > > if
> > > > > > > >> you
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > provide
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > clear
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > definitions on how to measure them.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Vladimir.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Eduard
> > > > > > Shangareev <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Also, I want to add some technical
> > > > > requirement.
> > > > > > > >> Let's
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > discuss
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > them.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Code style.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The code needs to be formatted
> according
> > > to
> > > > > > coding
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > guidelines
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/
> > > > confluence/display/IGNITE/
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > Coding+Guidelines
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > code must not contain TODOs without a
> > > ticket
> > > > > > > >> reference.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > It is highly recommended to make major
> > > > > > formatting
> > > > > > > >> > changes
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > in
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > existing
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > as a separate commit, to make review
> > > process
> > > > > > more
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > practical.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Documentation.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Added code should be well-documented.
> > Any
> > > > > > methods
> > > > > > > >> that
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > raise
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > questions
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > regarding their code flow, invariants,
> > > > > > > >> synchronization,
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > etc.,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > must
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > documented with comprehensive javadoc.
> > Any
> > > > > > > reviewer
> > > > > > > >> can
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > request
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > particular added method be documented.
> > > Also,
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > is a
> > > > > > > >> > good
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > practice
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > document old code in a 10-20 lines
> > region
> > > > > around
> > > > > > > >> > changed
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > code.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 3) Logging.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Make sure that there are enough
> logging
> > > > added
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > >> every
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > category
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > possible diagnostic in field. Check
> that
> > > > > logging
> > > > > > > >> > messages
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > are
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > properly
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > spelled.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 4) Metrics.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Are there any metrics that need to be
> > > > exposed
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> user?
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 5) TC status.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Recheck that there are no new failing
> > > tests
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 6) Refactoring.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The code should be better than before:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - extract method from big one;
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - do anything else to make code
> > clearer
> > > > > > (don't
> > > > > > > >> > forget
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > about
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    OOP-practise, replace if-else hell
> > with
> > > > > > > >> inheritance
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - split refactoring (renaming, code
> > > > format)
> > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > >> > actual
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    separate commit
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:23 PM,
> Eduard
> > > > > > > Shangareev <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, guys.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that we should update
> > > > maintainers
> > > > > > list
> > > > > > > >> > before
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > adding
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > review
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > requirement.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > There should not be the situation
> when
> > > > there
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > >> only
> > > > > > > >> > one
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > contributor
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > is responsible for a component.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > We already have issues with review
> > speed
> > > > and
> > > > > > > >> response
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > time.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 2:17 PM,
> Anton
> > > > > > > Vinogradov
> > > > > > > >> <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vova,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Everything you described sound
> good
> > to
> > > > me.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to propose to create
> > special
> > > > page
> > > > > > at
> > > > > > > AI
> > > > > > > >> > Wiki
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > describe
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > checklist.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case we'll find something
> should
> > be
> > > > > > > >> > changed/improved
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > it
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > update the page.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 0:53 GMT+03:00 Nikolay
> > > > Izhikov
> > > > > <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > nizhikov@apache.org
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Vladimir.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for seting up this
> > > > discussion.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As we discussed, I think an
> > > important
> > > > > part
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > >> > this
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > check
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > list
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > compatibility rules.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * What should be backward
> > > compatible?
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * How should we maintain it?
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) If ticket changes public
> API
> > or
> > > > > > > existing
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > behavior,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > at
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > least
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > two
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commiters should approve the
> > changes
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can learn from other open
> > source
> > > > > > project
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > experience.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Apache Kafka [1], for example,
> > > > requires
> > > > > > > >> KIP(kafka
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > improvement
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > proposal)
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for *every* major change.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Major change definition includes
> > > > public
> > > > > > API.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > confluence/display/KAFKA/
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kafka+Improvement+Proposals
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > В Чт, 19/04/2018 в 23:00 +0300,
> > > > Vladimir
> > > > > > > >> Ozerov
> > > > > > > >> > пишет:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's glad to see our community
> > > > becomes
> > > > > > > >> larger
> > > > > > > >> > every
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > day.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > grows
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes more and more
> difficult
> > to
> > > > > > manage
> > > > > > > >> > review and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > processes
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > keep quality of our decisions
> at
> > > the
> > > > > > > proper
> > > > > > > >> > level.
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > More
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > contributors,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commits, more components
> > > interlinked
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > >> each
> > > > > > > >> > other
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > in
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > subtle
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > ways.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to propose to
> > setup a
> > > > > > formal
> > > > > > > >> > review
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > checklist.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > This
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > set of actions every reviewer
> > > needs
> > > > to
> > > > > > > check
> > > > > > > >> > before
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > approving
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > certain feature. Passing the
> > > > checklist
> > > > > > > >> would be
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > *necessary
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sufficient* phase before
> commit
> > > > could
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > >> added
> > > > > > > >> > to
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > main
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > branch.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > checklist would help us to
> > detect
> > > a
> > > > > lot
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > >> > common
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > problems
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > broken
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests or bad UX earlier, and
> > would
> > > > > help
> > > > > > > >> > contributors
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > lead
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > their
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > pull
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > requests to merge.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hallmarks of a good checklist:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - It must be followed be
> > everyone
> > > > > > without
> > > > > > > >> > exceptions
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - It must be clear and
> disallow
> > > > > multiple
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > interpretations
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - It must be lightweight,
> > > otherwise
> > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > development
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > become
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nightmare
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - It must be non-blocking,
> i.e.
> > > > > > > >> inacessibility
> > > > > > > >> > of a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > single
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > contributor
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should not block ticket
> progress
> > > > > > forever.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please let me know if you
> think
> > > the
> > > > > idea
> > > > > > > >> makes
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > sense.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > If
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > agree
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > let's start defining action
> > items
> > > > for
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > checklist.
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > My
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > 2
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > cents:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) All unit tests pass on TC
> > > without
> > > > > new
> > > > > > > >> > failures
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) If ticket targets specific
> > > > > component,
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > >> > should
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > be
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > reviewed
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > component's maintainer*
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) If ticket changes public
> API
> > or
> > > > > > > existing
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > behavior,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > at
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > least
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > two
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commiters should approve the
> > > changes
> > > > > **
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vladimir.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * TBD: Review component list
> and
> > > > > define
> > > > > > > >> > maintainers;
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > define
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > do if
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > maintainer is unavailable
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ** TBD: Define what is "public
> > > API"
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >   Andrey Kuznetsov.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > --
> > > > > > > >> > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > >> > > >   Andrey Kuznetsov.
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > >   Andrey Kuznetsov.
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>   Andrey Kuznetsov.
>

Re: Ticket review checklist

[Andrey Kuznetsov <st...@gmail.com>]

Anton,

I agree, *MUST* for exception reasons and *SHOULD* for ways of resolution
sound clearer.

2018-05-08 12:56 GMT+03:00 Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:

> Andrey,
>
> How about
> 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user *MUST* have explanation of workaround
> and contain original error.
> All exceptions thrown to a user *SHOULD* have explanation how to resolve if
> possible.
> ?
>
> вт, 8 мая 2018 г. в 12:26, Andrey Kuznetsov <st...@gmail.com>:
>
> > Vladimir, checklist looks pleasant enough for me.
> >
> > I'd like to suggest one minor change. In 1.6 *MUST* seems to be too
> strict,
> > *SHOULD* would be enough. It can be frustrating for API user if I explain
> > how to fix NPEs in a trivial way, for example.
> >
> > 2018-05-08 11:34 GMT+03:00 Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> >
> > > Alex,
> > >
> > > It is not sounds like that, obviously.
> > >
> > > Tests should cover all negative and positive cases.
> > > You should add enough tests to cover all cases.
> > >
> > > Sometimes one test can cover more than one case, so two tests *CAN*
> > > partially check same things.
> > > In case some cases already covered you should not create duplicates.
> > >
> > > вт, 8 мая 2018 г. в 10:19, Александр Меньшиков <sh...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > > Vladimir, the 3.1 is a bit unclear for me. Which code coverage is
> > > > acceptable? Now it sounds like two tests are enough (one for positive
> > and
> > > > one for negative cases).
> > > >
> > > > 2018-05-07 23:09 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrakyan@apache.org
> >:
> > > >
> > > > > Is this list on the Wiki?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 7:26 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is the checklist I have at the moment. Please let me know if
> > you
> > > > > have
> > > > > > any comments on existing items, or want to add or remove
> anything.
> > It
> > > > > looks
> > > > > > like we may have not only strict rules, but *nice to have* points
> > > here
> > > > as
> > > > > > well with help of *MUST*, *SHOULD* and *MAY* words as per RFC2119
> > > [1].
> > > > So
> > > > > > please feel free to suggest optional items as well.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1) API
> > > > > > 1.1) API compatibility *MUST* be maintained between minor
> releases.
> > > Do
> > > > > not
> > > > > > remove existing methods or change their signatures, deprecate
> them
> > > > > instead
> > > > > > 1.2) Default behaviour "SHOULD NOT* be changed between minor
> > > releases,
> > > > > > unless absolutely needed. If change is made, it *MUST* be
> described
> > > in
> > > > > > "Migration Guide"
> > > > > > 1.3) New operation *MUST* be well-documented in code (javadoc,
> > > > > dotnetdoc):
> > > > > > documentation must contain method's purpose, description of
> > > parameters
> > > > > and
> > > > > > how their values affect the outcome, description of return value
> > and
> > > > it's
> > > > > > default, behavior in negative cases, interaction with other
> > > operations
> > > > > and
> > > > > > components
> > > > > > 1.4) API parity between Java and .NET platforms *SHOULD* be
> > > maintained
> > > > > when
> > > > > > operation makes sense on both platforms. If method cannot be
> > > > implemented
> > > > > in
> > > > > > a platform immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be created and
> > linked
> > > to
> > > > > > current ticket
> > > > > > 1.5) API parity between thin clients (Java, .NET) *SHOULD* be
> > > > maintained
> > > > > > when operation makes sense on several clients. If method cannot
> be
> > > > > > implemented in a client immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be
> > > created
> > > > > and
> > > > > > linked to current ticket
> > > > > > 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user *MUST* have explanation how
> to
> > > > > > resolve, workaround or debug an error
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2) Compatibility
> > > > > > 2.1) Persistence backward compatibility *MUST* be maintained
> > between
> > > > > minor
> > > > > > releases. It should be possible to start newer version on data
> > files
> > > > > > created by the previous version
> > > > > > 2.2) Thin client forward and backward compatibility *SHOULD* be
> > > > > maintained
> > > > > > between two consecutive minor releases. If compatibility cannot
> be
> > > > > > maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
> > > > > > 2.3) JDBC and ODBC forward and backward compatibility *SHOULD* be
> > > > > > maintained between two consecutive minor releases. If
> compatibility
> > > > > cannot
> > > > > > be maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 3) Tests
> > > > > > 3.1) New functionality *MUST* be covered with unit tests for both
> > > > > positive
> > > > > > and negative use cases
> > > > > > 3.2) All test suites *MUST* be run before merge to master..There
> > > *MUST*
> > > > > be
> > > > > > no new test failures
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 4) Code style *MUST* be followed as per Ignite's Coding
> Guidelines
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Vladimir.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1] https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Dmitry,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes, I'll do that in the nearest days.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <
> > > > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> Igniters, the idea was related to small refactorings
> co-located
> > > with
> > > > > > main
> > > > > > >> change.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Main change itself indicates that existing code did not meet
> the
> > > > > > criteria
> > > > > > >> of practice. Approving of standalone refactorings instead
> > > > contradicts
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > >> principle don't touch if it works. So I still like idea of
> > > > co-located
> > > > > > >> changes improving code, javadocs, style, etc.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> But let's not argue about this point now, let's summarize the
> > > > > undisputed
> > > > > > >> points and add it to the wiki. Vladimir, would you please do
> it?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> ср, 25 апр. 2018 г. в 16:42, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > nizhikov@apache.org
> > > >:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > Igniters,
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > I agree with Vova.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > Don't fix if it works!
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > If you 100% sure then it a useful addition to the product -
> > just
> > > > > make
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > >> > separate ticket.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > В Ср, 25/04/2018 в 11:44 +0300, Vladimir Ozerov пишет:
> > > > > > >> > > Guys,
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > The problem with in-place refactorings is that you
> increase
> > > > > affected
> > > > > > >> > scope.
> > > > > > >> > > It is not uncommon to break compatibility or public
> > contracts
> > > > with
> > > > > > >> even
> > > > > > >> > > minor things. E.g. recently we decided drop org.jsr166
> > package
> > > > in
> > > > > > >> favor
> > > > > > >> > of
> > > > > > >> > > Java 8 classes. Innocent change. Result - broken storage.
> > > > Another
> > > > > > >> problem
> > > > > > >> > > is conflicts. It is not uncommon to have long-lived
> branches
> > > > which
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > >> > need
> > > > > > >> > > to merge with master over and over again. And a lot of
> > > > > refactorings
> > > > > > >> cause
> > > > > > >> > > conflicts. It is much easier to resolve them if you know
> > that
> > > > > logic
> > > > > > >> was
> > > > > > >> > not
> > > > > > >> > > affected as opposed to cases when you need to resolve both
> > > > renames
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> > > method extractions along with business-logic changes.
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > I'd like to repeat - if you have a time for refactoring
> then
> > > you
> > > > > > >> > definitely
> > > > > > >> > > have a time to extract these changes to separate PR and
> > > submit a
> > > > > > >> separate
> > > > > > >> > > ticket. I am quite understand what "low priority" do you
> > mean
> > > if
> > > > > you
> > > > > > >> do
> > > > > > >> > > refactorings on your own.
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 10:52 PM, Andrey Kuznetsov <
> > > > > > stkuzma@gmail.com
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > +1.
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > Once again, I beg for "small refactoring permission" in
> a
> > > > > > checklist.
> > > > > > >> > As of
> > > > > > >> > > > today, separate tickets for small refactorings has
> lowest
> > > > > > priority,
> > > > > > >> > since
> > > > > > >> > > > they neither fix any flaw nor add new functionality.
> Also,
> > > the
> > > > > > >> > attempts to
> > > > > > >> > > > make issue-related code safer / cleaner / more readable
> in
> > > > > "real"
> > > > > > >> pull
> > > > > > >> > > > requests are typically rejected, since they contradict
> our
> > > > > current
> > > > > > >> > > > guidelines.
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > I understand this will require a bit more effort from
> > > > > > >> > committer/maintainer,
> > > > > > >> > > > but otherwise we will get constantly degrading code
> > quality.
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > 2018-04-24 18:52 GMT+03:00 Eduard Shangareev <
> > > > > > >> > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com
> > > > > > >> > > > > :
> > > > > > >> > > > > Vladimir,
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > I am not talking about massive/sophisticated
> > refactoring.
> > > > But
> > > > > I
> > > > > > >> > believe
> > > > > > >> > > > > that ask to extract some methods should be OK to do
> > > without
> > > > an
> > > > > > >> extra
> > > > > > >> > > > > ticket.
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > A checklist shouldn't be necessarily a set of certain
> > > rules
> > > > > but
> > > > > > >> also
> > > > > > >> > it
> > > > > > >> > > > > could include suggestion and reminders.
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 6:39 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > > > > >> > vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > > > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > Ed,
> > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > Refactoring is a separate task. If you would like to
> > > > rework
> > > > > > >> > exchange
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > future
> > > > > > >> > > > > > - please do this in a ticket "Refactor exchange
> task",
> > > > > nobody
> > > > > > >> would
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > against
> > > > > > >> > > > > > this. This is just a matter of creating separate
> > ticket
> > > > and
> > > > > > >> > separate
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > PR.
> > > > > > >> > > > > If
> > > > > > >> > > > > > one have a time for refactoring, it should not be a
> > > > problem
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > >> > him to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > spend several minutes on JIRA and GitHub.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > As far as documentation - what you describe is
> normal
> > > > review
> > > > > > >> > process,
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > when
> > > > > > >> > > > > > reviewer might want to ask contributor to fix
> > something.
> > > > > > >> Checklist
> > > > > > >> > is a
> > > > > > >> > > > > > different thing - this is a set of rules which must
> be
> > > > > > followed
> > > > > > >> by
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > anyone.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > I do not understand how you can define documentation
> > in
> > > > this
> > > > > > >> > checklist.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > Same problem with logging - what is "enough"?
> > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Eduard Shangareev <
> > > > > > >> > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > I don't understand why you are so against
> > refactoring.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Code already smells like hell. Methods 200+ line
> is
> > > > > normal.
> > > > > > >> > Exchange
> > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > future
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > is asking to be separated on several one.
> > Transaction
> > > > code
> > > > > > >> could
> > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > understand
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > few people.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > If we separate refactoring from development it
> would
> > > > mean
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > >> > no one
> > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > will
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > do it.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > 2) Documentation.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Everything which was asked by reviewers to clarify
> > > idea
> > > > > > >> should be
> > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > reflected
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > in the code.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > 3) Logging.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Logging should be enough to troubleshoot the
> problem
> > > if
> > > > > > >> someone
> > > > > > >> > comes
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > user-list with an issue in the code.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 7:06 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > +1 to idea of checklist.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > +1 to refactoring and documenting code related
> to
> > > > ticket
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > >> > +/-20
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > LOC
> > > > > > >> > > > > > at
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > least.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > If we start to do it as part of our regular
> > > > > contribution,
> > > > > > >> code
> > > > > > >> > will
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > be
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > better, it would became common practice and part
> > of
> > > > > Apache
> > > > > > >> > Ignite
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > development culure.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > If we will hope we will have free time to submit
> > > > > separate
> > > > > > >> patch
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > someday
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > have patience to complete patch-submission
> > process,
> > > > code
> > > > > > >> will
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > remain
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > undocumented and poor-readable.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Sincerely,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > пт, 20 апр. 2018 г. в 18:56, Александр
> Меньшиков <
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > sharplermc@gmail.com
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > :
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 4) Metrics.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > partially +1
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > It makes sense to have some minimal code
> > coverage
> > > > for
> > > > > > new
> > > > > > >> > code in
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > PR.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IMHO.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Also, we can limit the cyclomatic complexity
> of
> > > the
> > > > > new
> > > > > > >> code
> > > > > > >> > in
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > PR
> > > > > > >> > > > > > too.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 6) Refactoring
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > -1
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > I understand why people want to refactor old
> > code.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > But I think refactoring should be always a
> > > separate
> > > > > > task.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > And it's better to remove all refactoring from
> > PR,
> > > > if
> > > > > > it's
> > > > > > >> > not
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > sense
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > the issue.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 16:54 GMT+03:00 Andrey Kuznetsov <
> > > > > > >> > stkuzma@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > What about adding the following item to the
> > > > > checklist:
> > > > > > >> > when the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > change
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > adds
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > new functionality, then unit tests should
> also
> > > be
> > > > > > >> > provided, if
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > it's
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > technically possible?
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > As for refactorings, in fact they are
> strongly
> > > > > > >> discouraged
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > today
> > > > > > >> > > > > > for
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > unclear reason. Let's permit to make
> > > refactorings
> > > > in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > checklist
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > being
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > discussed. (Of cource, refactoring should
> > relate
> > > > to
> > > > > > >> problem
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > being
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > solved.)
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 16:16 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > vozerov@gridgain.com
> > > > > > >> > > > > > :
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ed,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately some of these points are not
> > > good
> > > > > > >> > candidates
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > for
> > > > > > >> > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > checklist because of these:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > - It must be clear and disallow *multiple
> > > > > > >> > interpretations*
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > - It must be *lightweight*, otherwise
> Ignite
> > > > > > >> development
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > would
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > become a
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > nightmare
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > We cannot have "nice to have" points here.
> > > > > Checklist
> > > > > > >> > should
> > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > answer
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > question "is ticket eligible to be
> merged?"
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Code style.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > +1
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  2) Documentation
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -1, it is impossible to define what is
> > > > > > >> > "well-documented". A
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > piece
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > code
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > could be obvious for one contributor, and
> > > > > > non-obvious
> > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > another.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > In
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > case this is not a blocker for merge.
> > Instead,
> > > > > > during
> > > > > > >> > review
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > one
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > can
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > ask
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > implementer to add more docs, but it
> cannot
> > be
> > > > > > forced.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  3) Logging
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -1, same problem - what is "enough
> > logging?".
> > > > > Enough
> > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > whom?
> > > > > > >> > > > > > How
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > understand whether it is enough or not?
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  4) Metrics
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -1, no clear boundaries, and decision on
> > > whether
> > > > > > >> metrics
> > > > > > >> > are
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > be
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > added
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > not should be performed during design
> phase.
> > > As
> > > > > > >> before,
> > > > > > >> > it is
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > perfectly
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > valid to ask contributor to add metrics
> with
> > > > clear
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > explanation
> > > > > > >> > > > > > why,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > this is not part of the checklist.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5) TC status
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > +1, already mentioned
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  6) Refactoring
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Strong -1. OOP is a slippery slope, there
> > are
> > > no
> > > > > > good
> > > > > > >> > and bad
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > receipts
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > all cases, hence it cannot be used in a
> > > > checklist.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > We can borrow useful rules from p.2, p.3
> and
> > > p.4
> > > > > if
> > > > > > >> you
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > provide
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > clear
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > definitions on how to measure them.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Vladimir.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Eduard
> > > > > Shangareev <
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Also, I want to add some technical
> > > > requirement.
> > > > > > >> Let's
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > discuss
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > them.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Code style.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The code needs to be formatted according
> > to
> > > > > coding
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > guidelines
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/
> > > confluence/display/IGNITE/
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > Coding+Guidelines
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > .
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > code must not contain TODOs without a
> > ticket
> > > > > > >> reference.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > It is highly recommended to make major
> > > > > formatting
> > > > > > >> > changes
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > in
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > existing
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > code
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > as a separate commit, to make review
> > process
> > > > > more
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > practical.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Documentation.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Added code should be well-documented.
> Any
> > > > > methods
> > > > > > >> that
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > raise
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > questions
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > regarding their code flow, invariants,
> > > > > > >> synchronization,
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > etc.,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > must
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > documented with comprehensive javadoc.
> Any
> > > > > > reviewer
> > > > > > >> can
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > request
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > particular added method be documented.
> > Also,
> > > > it
> > > > > > is a
> > > > > > >> > good
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > practice
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > document old code in a 10-20 lines
> region
> > > > around
> > > > > > >> > changed
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > code.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 3) Logging.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Make sure that there are enough logging
> > > added
> > > > in
> > > > > > >> every
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > category
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > possible diagnostic in field. Check that
> > > > logging
> > > > > > >> > messages
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > are
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > properly
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > spelled.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 4) Metrics.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Are there any metrics that need to be
> > > exposed
> > > > to
> > > > > > >> user?
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 5) TC status.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Recheck that there are no new failing
> > tests
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 6) Refactoring.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The code should be better than before:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - extract method from big one;
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - do anything else to make code
> clearer
> > > > > (don't
> > > > > > >> > forget
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > about
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > some
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    OOP-practise, replace if-else hell
> with
> > > > > > >> inheritance
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - split refactoring (renaming, code
> > > format)
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > >> > actual
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    separate commit
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:23 PM, Eduard
> > > > > > Shangareev <
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, guys.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that we should update
> > > maintainers
> > > > > list
> > > > > > >> > before
> > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > adding
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > review
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > requirement.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > There should not be the situation when
> > > there
> > > > > is
> > > > > > >> only
> > > > > > >> > one
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > contributor
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > who
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > is responsible for a component.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > We already have issues with review
> speed
> > > and
> > > > > > >> response
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > time.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 2:17 PM, Anton
> > > > > > Vinogradov
> > > > > > >> <
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vova,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Everything you described sound good
> to
> > > me.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to propose to create
> special
> > > page
> > > > > at
> > > > > > AI
> > > > > > >> > Wiki
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > and
> > > > > > >> > > > > to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > describe
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > checklist.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case we'll find something should
> be
> > > > > > >> > changed/improved
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > it
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > will
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > update the page.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 0:53 GMT+03:00 Nikolay
> > > Izhikov
> > > > <
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > nizhikov@apache.org
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Vladimir.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for seting up this
> > > discussion.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As we discussed, I think an
> > important
> > > > part
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > >> > this
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > check
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > list
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > compatibility rules.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * What should be backward
> > compatible?
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * How should we maintain it?
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) If ticket changes public API
> or
> > > > > > existing
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > behavior,
> > > > > > >> > > > > at
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > least
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > two
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commiters should approve the
> changes
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can learn from other open
> source
> > > > > project
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > experience.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Apache Kafka [1], for example,
> > > requires
> > > > > > >> KIP(kafka
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > improvement
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > proposal)
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for *every* major change.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Major change definition includes
> > > public
> > > > > API.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > confluence/display/KAFKA/
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kafka+Improvement+Proposals
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > В Чт, 19/04/2018 в 23:00 +0300,
> > > Vladimir
> > > > > > >> Ozerov
> > > > > > >> > пишет:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's glad to see our community
> > > becomes
> > > > > > >> larger
> > > > > > >> > every
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > day.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > But
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > grows
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes more and more difficult
> to
> > > > > manage
> > > > > > >> > review and
> > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > merge
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > processes
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > keep quality of our decisions at
> > the
> > > > > > proper
> > > > > > >> > level.
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > More
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > contributors,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commits, more components
> > interlinked
> > > > > with
> > > > > > >> each
> > > > > > >> > other
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > in
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > subtle
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > ways.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to propose to
> setup a
> > > > > formal
> > > > > > >> > review
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > checklist.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > This
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be a
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > set of actions every reviewer
> > needs
> > > to
> > > > > > check
> > > > > > >> > before
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > approving
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > merge
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of a
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > certain feature. Passing the
> > > checklist
> > > > > > >> would be
> > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > *necessary
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sufficient* phase before commit
> > > could
> > > > be
> > > > > > >> added
> > > > > > >> > to
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > main
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > branch.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > checklist would help us to
> detect
> > a
> > > > lot
> > > > > of
> > > > > > >> > common
> > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > problems
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > broken
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests or bad UX earlier, and
> would
> > > > help
> > > > > > >> > contributors
> > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > lead
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > their
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > pull
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > requests to merge.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hallmarks of a good checklist:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - It must be followed be
> everyone
> > > > > without
> > > > > > >> > exceptions
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - It must be clear and disallow
> > > > multiple
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > interpretations
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - It must be lightweight,
> > otherwise
> > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > development
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > would
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > become
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nightmare
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - It must be non-blocking, i.e.
> > > > > > >> inacessibility
> > > > > > >> > of a
> > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > single
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > contributor
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should not block ticket progress
> > > > > forever.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please let me know if you think
> > the
> > > > idea
> > > > > > >> makes
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > sense.
> > > > > > >> > > > > If
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > agree
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > let's start defining action
> items
> > > for
> > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > checklist.
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > My
> > > > > > >> > > > > > 2
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > cents:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) All unit tests pass on TC
> > without
> > > > new
> > > > > > >> > failures
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) If ticket targets specific
> > > > component,
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > >> > should
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > be
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > reviewed
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > component's maintainer*
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) If ticket changes public API
> or
> > > > > > existing
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > behavior,
> > > > > > >> > > > > at
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > least
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > two
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commiters should approve the
> > changes
> > > > **
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vladimir.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * TBD: Review component list and
> > > > define
> > > > > > >> > maintainers;
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > define
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > do if
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > maintainer is unavailable
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ** TBD: Define what is "public
> > API"
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >   Andrey Kuznetsov.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > --
> > > > > > >> > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > >> > > >   Andrey Kuznetsov.
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> >   Andrey Kuznetsov.
> >
>



-- 
Best regards,
  Andrey Kuznetsov.

Re: Ticket review checklist

[Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>]

Andrey,

How about
1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user *MUST* have explanation of workaround
and contain original error.
All exceptions thrown to a user *SHOULD* have explanation how to resolve if
possible.
?

вт, 8 мая 2018 г. в 12:26, Andrey Kuznetsov <st...@gmail.com>:

> Vladimir, checklist looks pleasant enough for me.
>
> I'd like to suggest one minor change. In 1.6 *MUST* seems to be too strict,
> *SHOULD* would be enough. It can be frustrating for API user if I explain
> how to fix NPEs in a trivial way, for example.
>
> 2018-05-08 11:34 GMT+03:00 Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
>
> > Alex,
> >
> > It is not sounds like that, obviously.
> >
> > Tests should cover all negative and positive cases.
> > You should add enough tests to cover all cases.
> >
> > Sometimes one test can cover more than one case, so two tests *CAN*
> > partially check same things.
> > In case some cases already covered you should not create duplicates.
> >
> > вт, 8 мая 2018 г. в 10:19, Александр Меньшиков <sh...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > Vladimir, the 3.1 is a bit unclear for me. Which code coverage is
> > > acceptable? Now it sounds like two tests are enough (one for positive
> and
> > > one for negative cases).
> > >
> > > 2018-05-07 23:09 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>:
> > >
> > > > Is this list on the Wiki?
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 7:26 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Igniters,
> > > > >
> > > > > This is the checklist I have at the moment. Please let me know if
> you
> > > > have
> > > > > any comments on existing items, or want to add or remove anything.
> It
> > > > looks
> > > > > like we may have not only strict rules, but *nice to have* points
> > here
> > > as
> > > > > well with help of *MUST*, *SHOULD* and *MAY* words as per RFC2119
> > [1].
> > > So
> > > > > please feel free to suggest optional items as well.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) API
> > > > > 1.1) API compatibility *MUST* be maintained between minor releases.
> > Do
> > > > not
> > > > > remove existing methods or change their signatures, deprecate them
> > > > instead
> > > > > 1.2) Default behaviour "SHOULD NOT* be changed between minor
> > releases,
> > > > > unless absolutely needed. If change is made, it *MUST* be described
> > in
> > > > > "Migration Guide"
> > > > > 1.3) New operation *MUST* be well-documented in code (javadoc,
> > > > dotnetdoc):
> > > > > documentation must contain method's purpose, description of
> > parameters
> > > > and
> > > > > how their values affect the outcome, description of return value
> and
> > > it's
> > > > > default, behavior in negative cases, interaction with other
> > operations
> > > > and
> > > > > components
> > > > > 1.4) API parity between Java and .NET platforms *SHOULD* be
> > maintained
> > > > when
> > > > > operation makes sense on both platforms. If method cannot be
> > > implemented
> > > > in
> > > > > a platform immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be created and
> linked
> > to
> > > > > current ticket
> > > > > 1.5) API parity between thin clients (Java, .NET) *SHOULD* be
> > > maintained
> > > > > when operation makes sense on several clients. If method cannot be
> > > > > implemented in a client immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be
> > created
> > > > and
> > > > > linked to current ticket
> > > > > 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user *MUST* have explanation how to
> > > > > resolve, workaround or debug an error
> > > > >
> > > > > 2) Compatibility
> > > > > 2.1) Persistence backward compatibility *MUST* be maintained
> between
> > > > minor
> > > > > releases. It should be possible to start newer version on data
> files
> > > > > created by the previous version
> > > > > 2.2) Thin client forward and backward compatibility *SHOULD* be
> > > > maintained
> > > > > between two consecutive minor releases. If compatibility cannot be
> > > > > maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
> > > > > 2.3) JDBC and ODBC forward and backward compatibility *SHOULD* be
> > > > > maintained between two consecutive minor releases. If compatibility
> > > > cannot
> > > > > be maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
> > > > >
> > > > > 3) Tests
> > > > > 3.1) New functionality *MUST* be covered with unit tests for both
> > > > positive
> > > > > and negative use cases
> > > > > 3.2) All test suites *MUST* be run before merge to master..There
> > *MUST*
> > > > be
> > > > > no new test failures
> > > > >
> > > > > 4) Code style *MUST* be followed as per Ignite's Coding Guidelines
> > > > >
> > > > > Vladimir.
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Dmitry,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, I'll do that in the nearest days.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <
> > > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Igniters, the idea was related to small refactorings co-located
> > with
> > > > > main
> > > > > >> change.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Main change itself indicates that existing code did not meet the
> > > > > criteria
> > > > > >> of practice. Approving of standalone refactorings instead
> > > contradicts
> > > > > with
> > > > > >> principle don't touch if it works. So I still like idea of
> > > co-located
> > > > > >> changes improving code, javadocs, style, etc.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> But let's not argue about this point now, let's summarize the
> > > > undisputed
> > > > > >> points and add it to the wiki. Vladimir, would you please do it?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> ср, 25 апр. 2018 г. в 16:42, Nikolay Izhikov <
> nizhikov@apache.org
> > >:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > Igniters,
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > I agree with Vova.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Don't fix if it works!
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > If you 100% sure then it a useful addition to the product -
> just
> > > > make
> > > > > a
> > > > > >> > separate ticket.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > В Ср, 25/04/2018 в 11:44 +0300, Vladimir Ozerov пишет:
> > > > > >> > > Guys,
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > The problem with in-place refactorings is that you increase
> > > > affected
> > > > > >> > scope.
> > > > > >> > > It is not uncommon to break compatibility or public
> contracts
> > > with
> > > > > >> even
> > > > > >> > > minor things. E.g. recently we decided drop org.jsr166
> package
> > > in
> > > > > >> favor
> > > > > >> > of
> > > > > >> > > Java 8 classes. Innocent change. Result - broken storage.
> > > Another
> > > > > >> problem
> > > > > >> > > is conflicts. It is not uncommon to have long-lived branches
> > > which
> > > > > we
> > > > > >> > need
> > > > > >> > > to merge with master over and over again. And a lot of
> > > > refactorings
> > > > > >> cause
> > > > > >> > > conflicts. It is much easier to resolve them if you know
> that
> > > > logic
> > > > > >> was
> > > > > >> > not
> > > > > >> > > affected as opposed to cases when you need to resolve both
> > > renames
> > > > > and
> > > > > >> > > method extractions along with business-logic changes.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > I'd like to repeat - if you have a time for refactoring then
> > you
> > > > > >> > definitely
> > > > > >> > > have a time to extract these changes to separate PR and
> > submit a
> > > > > >> separate
> > > > > >> > > ticket. I am quite understand what "low priority" do you
> mean
> > if
> > > > you
> > > > > >> do
> > > > > >> > > refactorings on your own.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 10:52 PM, Andrey Kuznetsov <
> > > > > stkuzma@gmail.com
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > > +1.
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > Once again, I beg for "small refactoring permission" in a
> > > > > checklist.
> > > > > >> > As of
> > > > > >> > > > today, separate tickets for small refactorings has lowest
> > > > > priority,
> > > > > >> > since
> > > > > >> > > > they neither fix any flaw nor add new functionality. Also,
> > the
> > > > > >> > attempts to
> > > > > >> > > > make issue-related code safer / cleaner / more readable in
> > > > "real"
> > > > > >> pull
> > > > > >> > > > requests are typically rejected, since they contradict our
> > > > current
> > > > > >> > > > guidelines.
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > I understand this will require a bit more effort from
> > > > > >> > committer/maintainer,
> > > > > >> > > > but otherwise we will get constantly degrading code
> quality.
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > 2018-04-24 18:52 GMT+03:00 Eduard Shangareev <
> > > > > >> > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com
> > > > > >> > > > > :
> > > > > >> > > > > Vladimir,
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > I am not talking about massive/sophisticated
> refactoring.
> > > But
> > > > I
> > > > > >> > believe
> > > > > >> > > > > that ask to extract some methods should be OK to do
> > without
> > > an
> > > > > >> extra
> > > > > >> > > > > ticket.
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > A checklist shouldn't be necessarily a set of certain
> > rules
> > > > but
> > > > > >> also
> > > > > >> > it
> > > > > >> > > > > could include suggestion and reminders.
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 6:39 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > > > >> > vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > Ed,
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > Refactoring is a separate task. If you would like to
> > > rework
> > > > > >> > exchange
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > future
> > > > > >> > > > > > - please do this in a ticket "Refactor exchange task",
> > > > nobody
> > > > > >> would
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > against
> > > > > >> > > > > > this. This is just a matter of creating separate
> ticket
> > > and
> > > > > >> > separate
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > PR.
> > > > > >> > > > > If
> > > > > >> > > > > > one have a time for refactoring, it should not be a
> > > problem
> > > > > for
> > > > > >> > him to
> > > > > >> > > > > > spend several minutes on JIRA and GitHub.
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > As far as documentation - what you describe is normal
> > > review
> > > > > >> > process,
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > when
> > > > > >> > > > > > reviewer might want to ask contributor to fix
> something.
> > > > > >> Checklist
> > > > > >> > is a
> > > > > >> > > > > > different thing - this is a set of rules which must be
> > > > > followed
> > > > > >> by
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > anyone.
> > > > > >> > > > > > I do not understand how you can define documentation
> in
> > > this
> > > > > >> > checklist.
> > > > > >> > > > > > Same problem with logging - what is "enough"?
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Eduard Shangareev <
> > > > > >> > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > I don't understand why you are so against
> refactoring.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > Code already smells like hell. Methods 200+ line is
> > > > normal.
> > > > > >> > Exchange
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > future
> > > > > >> > > > > > > is asking to be separated on several one.
> Transaction
> > > code
> > > > > >> could
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > understand
> > > > > >> > > > > > > few people.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > If we separate refactoring from development it would
> > > mean
> > > > > that
> > > > > >> > no one
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > will
> > > > > >> > > > > > > do it.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > 2) Documentation.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > Everything which was asked by reviewers to clarify
> > idea
> > > > > >> should be
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > reflected
> > > > > >> > > > > > > in the code.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > 3) Logging.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > Logging should be enough to troubleshoot the problem
> > if
> > > > > >> someone
> > > > > >> > comes
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > > > user-list with an issue in the code.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 7:06 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > +1 to idea of checklist.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > +1 to refactoring and documenting code related to
> > > ticket
> > > > > in
> > > > > >> > +/-20
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > LOC
> > > > > >> > > > > > at
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > least.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > If we start to do it as part of our regular
> > > > contribution,
> > > > > >> code
> > > > > >> > will
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > be
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > better, it would became common practice and part
> of
> > > > Apache
> > > > > >> > Ignite
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > development culure.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > If we will hope we will have free time to submit
> > > > separate
> > > > > >> patch
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > someday
> > > > > >> > > > > > > and
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > have patience to complete patch-submission
> process,
> > > code
> > > > > >> will
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > remain
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > undocumented and poor-readable.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > Sincerely,
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > пт, 20 апр. 2018 г. в 18:56, Александр Меньшиков <
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > sharplermc@gmail.com
> > > > > >> > > > > > > :
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 4) Metrics.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > partially +1
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > It makes sense to have some minimal code
> coverage
> > > for
> > > > > new
> > > > > >> > code in
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > PR.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > IMHO.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Also, we can limit the cyclomatic complexity of
> > the
> > > > new
> > > > > >> code
> > > > > >> > in
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > PR
> > > > > >> > > > > > too.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 6) Refactoring
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > -1
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > I understand why people want to refactor old
> code.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > But I think refactoring should be always a
> > separate
> > > > > task.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > And it's better to remove all refactoring from
> PR,
> > > if
> > > > > it's
> > > > > >> > not
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > > sense
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > the issue.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 16:54 GMT+03:00 Andrey Kuznetsov <
> > > > > >> > stkuzma@gmail.com>:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > What about adding the following item to the
> > > > checklist:
> > > > > >> > when the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > change
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > adds
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > new functionality, then unit tests should also
> > be
> > > > > >> > provided, if
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > it's
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > technically possible?
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > As for refactorings, in fact they are strongly
> > > > > >> discouraged
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > today
> > > > > >> > > > > > for
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > some
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > unclear reason. Let's permit to make
> > refactorings
> > > in
> > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > checklist
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > being
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > discussed. (Of cource, refactoring should
> relate
> > > to
> > > > > >> problem
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > being
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > solved.)
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 16:16 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > vozerov@gridgain.com
> > > > > >> > > > > > :
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ed,
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately some of these points are not
> > good
> > > > > >> > candidates
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > for
> > > > > >> > > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > checklist because of these:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > - It must be clear and disallow *multiple
> > > > > >> > interpretations*
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > - It must be *lightweight*, otherwise Ignite
> > > > > >> development
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > would
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > become a
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > nightmare
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > We cannot have "nice to have" points here.
> > > > Checklist
> > > > > >> > should
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > answer
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > question "is ticket eligible to be merged?"
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Code style.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > +1
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  2) Documentation
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -1, it is impossible to define what is
> > > > > >> > "well-documented". A
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > piece
> > > > > >> > > > > > > of
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > code
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > could be obvious for one contributor, and
> > > > > non-obvious
> > > > > >> for
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > another.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > In
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > case this is not a blocker for merge.
> Instead,
> > > > > during
> > > > > >> > review
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > one
> > > > > >> > > > > > > can
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > ask
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > implementer to add more docs, but it cannot
> be
> > > > > forced.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  3) Logging
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -1, same problem - what is "enough
> logging?".
> > > > Enough
> > > > > >> for
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > whom?
> > > > > >> > > > > > How
> > > > > >> > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > understand whether it is enough or not?
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  4) Metrics
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -1, no clear boundaries, and decision on
> > whether
> > > > > >> metrics
> > > > > >> > are
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > > be
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > added
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > not should be performed during design phase.
> > As
> > > > > >> before,
> > > > > >> > it is
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > perfectly
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > valid to ask contributor to add metrics with
> > > clear
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > explanation
> > > > > >> > > > > > why,
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > but
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > this is not part of the checklist.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5) TC status
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > +1, already mentioned
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  6) Refactoring
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Strong -1. OOP is a slippery slope, there
> are
> > no
> > > > > good
> > > > > >> > and bad
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > receipts
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > all cases, hence it cannot be used in a
> > > checklist.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > We can borrow useful rules from p.2, p.3 and
> > p.4
> > > > if
> > > > > >> you
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > provide
> > > > > >> > > > > > > clear
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > definitions on how to measure them.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Vladimir.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Eduard
> > > > Shangareev <
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Also, I want to add some technical
> > > requirement.
> > > > > >> Let's
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > discuss
> > > > > >> > > > > > > them.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Code style.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The code needs to be formatted according
> to
> > > > coding
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > guidelines
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/
> > confluence/display/IGNITE/
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > Coding+Guidelines
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > .
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > code must not contain TODOs without a
> ticket
> > > > > >> reference.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > It is highly recommended to make major
> > > > formatting
> > > > > >> > changes
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > in
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > existing
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > code
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > as a separate commit, to make review
> process
> > > > more
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > practical.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Documentation.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Added code should be well-documented. Any
> > > > methods
> > > > > >> that
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > raise
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > questions
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > regarding their code flow, invariants,
> > > > > >> synchronization,
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > etc.,
> > > > > >> > > > > > > must
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > documented with comprehensive javadoc. Any
> > > > > reviewer
> > > > > >> can
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > request
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > particular added method be documented.
> Also,
> > > it
> > > > > is a
> > > > > >> > good
> > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > practice
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > document old code in a 10-20 lines region
> > > around
> > > > > >> > changed
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > code.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 3) Logging.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Make sure that there are enough logging
> > added
> > > in
> > > > > >> every
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > category
> > > > > >> > > > > > > for
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > possible diagnostic in field. Check that
> > > logging
> > > > > >> > messages
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > are
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > properly
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > spelled.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 4) Metrics.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Are there any metrics that need to be
> > exposed
> > > to
> > > > > >> user?
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 5) TC status.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Recheck that there are no new failing
> tests
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 6) Refactoring.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The code should be better than before:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - extract method from big one;
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - do anything else to make code clearer
> > > > (don't
> > > > > >> > forget
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > about
> > > > > >> > > > > > > some
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    OOP-practise, replace if-else hell with
> > > > > >> inheritance
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - split refactoring (renaming, code
> > format)
> > > > > from
> > > > > >> > actual
> > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > changes
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > by
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    separate commit
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:23 PM, Eduard
> > > > > Shangareev <
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, guys.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that we should update
> > maintainers
> > > > list
> > > > > >> > before
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > adding
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > this
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > review
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > requirement.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > There should not be the situation when
> > there
> > > > is
> > > > > >> only
> > > > > >> > one
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > contributor
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > who
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > is responsible for a component.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > We already have issues with review speed
> > and
> > > > > >> response
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > time.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 2:17 PM, Anton
> > > > > Vinogradov
> > > > > >> <
> > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vova,
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Everything you described sound good to
> > me.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to propose to create special
> > page
> > > > at
> > > > > AI
> > > > > >> > Wiki
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > and
> > > > > >> > > > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > describe
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > checklist.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case we'll find something should be
> > > > > >> > changed/improved
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > it
> > > > > >> > > > > > > will
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > update the page.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 0:53 GMT+03:00 Nikolay
> > Izhikov
> > > <
> > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > nizhikov@apache.org
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Vladimir.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for seting up this
> > discussion.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As we discussed, I think an
> important
> > > part
> > > > > of
> > > > > >> > this
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > check
> > > > > >> > > > > > > list
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > compatibility rules.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * What should be backward
> compatible?
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * How should we maintain it?
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) If ticket changes public API or
> > > > > existing
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > behavior,
> > > > > >> > > > > at
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > least
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > two
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commiters should approve the changes
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can learn from other open source
> > > > project
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > experience.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Apache Kafka [1], for example,
> > requires
> > > > > >> KIP(kafka
> > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > improvement
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > proposal)
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for *every* major change.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Major change definition includes
> > public
> > > > API.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > confluence/display/KAFKA/
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kafka+Improvement+Proposals
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > В Чт, 19/04/2018 в 23:00 +0300,
> > Vladimir
> > > > > >> Ozerov
> > > > > >> > пишет:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's glad to see our community
> > becomes
> > > > > >> larger
> > > > > >> > every
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > day.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > But
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > grows
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes more and more difficult to
> > > > manage
> > > > > >> > review and
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > merge
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > processes
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > keep quality of our decisions at
> the
> > > > > proper
> > > > > >> > level.
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > More
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > contributors,
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commits, more components
> interlinked
> > > > with
> > > > > >> each
> > > > > >> > other
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > in
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > subtle
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > ways.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to propose to setup a
> > > > formal
> > > > > >> > review
> > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > checklist.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > This
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be a
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > set of actions every reviewer
> needs
> > to
> > > > > check
> > > > > >> > before
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > approving
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > merge
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of a
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > certain feature. Passing the
> > checklist
> > > > > >> would be
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > *necessary
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > but
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sufficient* phase before commit
> > could
> > > be
> > > > > >> added
> > > > > >> > to
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > main
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > branch.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > checklist would help us to detect
> a
> > > lot
> > > > of
> > > > > >> > common
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > problems
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > broken
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests or bad UX earlier, and would
> > > help
> > > > > >> > contributors
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > lead
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > their
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > pull
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > requests to merge.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hallmarks of a good checklist:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - It must be followed be everyone
> > > > without
> > > > > >> > exceptions
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - It must be clear and disallow
> > > multiple
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > interpretations
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - It must be lightweight,
> otherwise
> > > > Ignite
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > development
> > > > > >> > > > > > > would
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > become
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nightmare
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - It must be non-blocking, i.e.
> > > > > >> inacessibility
> > > > > >> > of a
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > single
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > contributor
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should not block ticket progress
> > > > forever.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please let me know if you think
> the
> > > idea
> > > > > >> makes
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > sense.
> > > > > >> > > > > If
> > > > > >> > > > > > > we
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > agree
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it,
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > let's start defining action items
> > for
> > > > the
> > > > > >> > checklist.
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > My
> > > > > >> > > > > > 2
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > cents:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) All unit tests pass on TC
> without
> > > new
> > > > > >> > failures
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) If ticket targets specific
> > > component,
> > > > > it
> > > > > >> > should
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > be
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > reviewed
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > component's maintainer*
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) If ticket changes public API or
> > > > > existing
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > behavior,
> > > > > >> > > > > at
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > least
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > two
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commiters should approve the
> changes
> > > **
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vladimir.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * TBD: Review component list and
> > > define
> > > > > >> > maintainers;
> > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > define
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > do if
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > maintainer is unavailable
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ** TBD: Define what is "public
> API"
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >   Andrey Kuznetsov.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > --
> > > > > >> > > > Best regards,
> > > > > >> > > >   Andrey Kuznetsov.
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>   Andrey Kuznetsov.
>

Re: Ticket review checklist

[Andrey Kuznetsov <st...@gmail.com>]

Vladimir, checklist looks pleasant enough for me.

I'd like to suggest one minor change. In 1.6 *MUST* seems to be too strict,
*SHOULD* would be enough. It can be frustrating for API user if I explain
how to fix NPEs in a trivial way, for example.

2018-05-08 11:34 GMT+03:00 Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:

> Alex,
>
> It is not sounds like that, obviously.
>
> Tests should cover all negative and positive cases.
> You should add enough tests to cover all cases.
>
> Sometimes one test can cover more than one case, so two tests *CAN*
> partially check same things.
> In case some cases already covered you should not create duplicates.
>
> вт, 8 мая 2018 г. в 10:19, Александр Меньшиков <sh...@gmail.com>:
>
> > Vladimir, the 3.1 is a bit unclear for me. Which code coverage is
> > acceptable? Now it sounds like two tests are enough (one for positive and
> > one for negative cases).
> >
> > 2018-05-07 23:09 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>:
> >
> > > Is this list on the Wiki?
> > >
> > > On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 7:26 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Igniters,
> > > >
> > > > This is the checklist I have at the moment. Please let me know if you
> > > have
> > > > any comments on existing items, or want to add or remove anything. It
> > > looks
> > > > like we may have not only strict rules, but *nice to have* points
> here
> > as
> > > > well with help of *MUST*, *SHOULD* and *MAY* words as per RFC2119
> [1].
> > So
> > > > please feel free to suggest optional items as well.
> > > >
> > > > 1) API
> > > > 1.1) API compatibility *MUST* be maintained between minor releases.
> Do
> > > not
> > > > remove existing methods or change their signatures, deprecate them
> > > instead
> > > > 1.2) Default behaviour "SHOULD NOT* be changed between minor
> releases,
> > > > unless absolutely needed. If change is made, it *MUST* be described
> in
> > > > "Migration Guide"
> > > > 1.3) New operation *MUST* be well-documented in code (javadoc,
> > > dotnetdoc):
> > > > documentation must contain method's purpose, description of
> parameters
> > > and
> > > > how their values affect the outcome, description of return value and
> > it's
> > > > default, behavior in negative cases, interaction with other
> operations
> > > and
> > > > components
> > > > 1.4) API parity between Java and .NET platforms *SHOULD* be
> maintained
> > > when
> > > > operation makes sense on both platforms. If method cannot be
> > implemented
> > > in
> > > > a platform immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be created and linked
> to
> > > > current ticket
> > > > 1.5) API parity between thin clients (Java, .NET) *SHOULD* be
> > maintained
> > > > when operation makes sense on several clients. If method cannot be
> > > > implemented in a client immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be
> created
> > > and
> > > > linked to current ticket
> > > > 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user *MUST* have explanation how to
> > > > resolve, workaround or debug an error
> > > >
> > > > 2) Compatibility
> > > > 2.1) Persistence backward compatibility *MUST* be maintained between
> > > minor
> > > > releases. It should be possible to start newer version on data files
> > > > created by the previous version
> > > > 2.2) Thin client forward and backward compatibility *SHOULD* be
> > > maintained
> > > > between two consecutive minor releases. If compatibility cannot be
> > > > maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
> > > > 2.3) JDBC and ODBC forward and backward compatibility *SHOULD* be
> > > > maintained between two consecutive minor releases. If compatibility
> > > cannot
> > > > be maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
> > > >
> > > > 3) Tests
> > > > 3.1) New functionality *MUST* be covered with unit tests for both
> > > positive
> > > > and negative use cases
> > > > 3.2) All test suites *MUST* be run before merge to master..There
> *MUST*
> > > be
> > > > no new test failures
> > > >
> > > > 4) Code style *MUST* be followed as per Ignite's Coding Guidelines
> > > >
> > > > Vladimir.
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Dmitry,
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, I'll do that in the nearest days.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <
> > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Igniters, the idea was related to small refactorings co-located
> with
> > > > main
> > > > >> change.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Main change itself indicates that existing code did not meet the
> > > > criteria
> > > > >> of practice. Approving of standalone refactorings instead
> > contradicts
> > > > with
> > > > >> principle don't touch if it works. So I still like idea of
> > co-located
> > > > >> changes improving code, javadocs, style, etc.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> But let's not argue about this point now, let's summarize the
> > > undisputed
> > > > >> points and add it to the wiki. Vladimir, would you please do it?
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> ср, 25 апр. 2018 г. в 16:42, Nikolay Izhikov <nizhikov@apache.org
> >:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Igniters,
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > I agree with Vova.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Don't fix if it works!
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > If you 100% sure then it a useful addition to the product - just
> > > make
> > > > a
> > > > >> > separate ticket.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > В Ср, 25/04/2018 в 11:44 +0300, Vladimir Ozerov пишет:
> > > > >> > > Guys,
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > The problem with in-place refactorings is that you increase
> > > affected
> > > > >> > scope.
> > > > >> > > It is not uncommon to break compatibility or public contracts
> > with
> > > > >> even
> > > > >> > > minor things. E.g. recently we decided drop org.jsr166 package
> > in
> > > > >> favor
> > > > >> > of
> > > > >> > > Java 8 classes. Innocent change. Result - broken storage.
> > Another
> > > > >> problem
> > > > >> > > is conflicts. It is not uncommon to have long-lived branches
> > which
> > > > we
> > > > >> > need
> > > > >> > > to merge with master over and over again. And a lot of
> > > refactorings
> > > > >> cause
> > > > >> > > conflicts. It is much easier to resolve them if you know that
> > > logic
> > > > >> was
> > > > >> > not
> > > > >> > > affected as opposed to cases when you need to resolve both
> > renames
> > > > and
> > > > >> > > method extractions along with business-logic changes.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > I'd like to repeat - if you have a time for refactoring then
> you
> > > > >> > definitely
> > > > >> > > have a time to extract these changes to separate PR and
> submit a
> > > > >> separate
> > > > >> > > ticket. I am quite understand what "low priority" do you mean
> if
> > > you
> > > > >> do
> > > > >> > > refactorings on your own.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 10:52 PM, Andrey Kuznetsov <
> > > > stkuzma@gmail.com
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > > +1.
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > Once again, I beg for "small refactoring permission" in a
> > > > checklist.
> > > > >> > As of
> > > > >> > > > today, separate tickets for small refactorings has lowest
> > > > priority,
> > > > >> > since
> > > > >> > > > they neither fix any flaw nor add new functionality. Also,
> the
> > > > >> > attempts to
> > > > >> > > > make issue-related code safer / cleaner / more readable in
> > > "real"
> > > > >> pull
> > > > >> > > > requests are typically rejected, since they contradict our
> > > current
> > > > >> > > > guidelines.
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > I understand this will require a bit more effort from
> > > > >> > committer/maintainer,
> > > > >> > > > but otherwise we will get constantly degrading code quality.
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > 2018-04-24 18:52 GMT+03:00 Eduard Shangareev <
> > > > >> > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com
> > > > >> > > > > :
> > > > >> > > > > Vladimir,
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > I am not talking about massive/sophisticated refactoring.
> > But
> > > I
> > > > >> > believe
> > > > >> > > > > that ask to extract some methods should be OK to do
> without
> > an
> > > > >> extra
> > > > >> > > > > ticket.
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > A checklist shouldn't be necessarily a set of certain
> rules
> > > but
> > > > >> also
> > > > >> > it
> > > > >> > > > > could include suggestion and reminders.
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 6:39 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > > >> > vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > Ed,
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > Refactoring is a separate task. If you would like to
> > rework
> > > > >> > exchange
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > future
> > > > >> > > > > > - please do this in a ticket "Refactor exchange task",
> > > nobody
> > > > >> would
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > against
> > > > >> > > > > > this. This is just a matter of creating separate ticket
> > and
> > > > >> > separate
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > PR.
> > > > >> > > > > If
> > > > >> > > > > > one have a time for refactoring, it should not be a
> > problem
> > > > for
> > > > >> > him to
> > > > >> > > > > > spend several minutes on JIRA and GitHub.
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > As far as documentation - what you describe is normal
> > review
> > > > >> > process,
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > when
> > > > >> > > > > > reviewer might want to ask contributor to fix something.
> > > > >> Checklist
> > > > >> > is a
> > > > >> > > > > > different thing - this is a set of rules which must be
> > > > followed
> > > > >> by
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > anyone.
> > > > >> > > > > > I do not understand how you can define documentation in
> > this
> > > > >> > checklist.
> > > > >> > > > > > Same problem with logging - what is "enough"?
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Eduard Shangareev <
> > > > >> > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > I don't understand why you are so against refactoring.
> > > > >> > > > > > > Code already smells like hell. Methods 200+ line is
> > > normal.
> > > > >> > Exchange
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > future
> > > > >> > > > > > > is asking to be separated on several one. Transaction
> > code
> > > > >> could
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > understand
> > > > >> > > > > > > few people.
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > If we separate refactoring from development it would
> > mean
> > > > that
> > > > >> > no one
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > will
> > > > >> > > > > > > do it.
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > 2) Documentation.
> > > > >> > > > > > > Everything which was asked by reviewers to clarify
> idea
> > > > >> should be
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > reflected
> > > > >> > > > > > > in the code.
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > 3) Logging.
> > > > >> > > > > > > Logging should be enough to troubleshoot the problem
> if
> > > > >> someone
> > > > >> > comes
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > > user-list with an issue in the code.
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 7:06 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> > > > >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > +1 to idea of checklist.
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > +1 to refactoring and documenting code related to
> > ticket
> > > > in
> > > > >> > +/-20
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > LOC
> > > > >> > > > > > at
> > > > >> > > > > > > > least.
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > If we start to do it as part of our regular
> > > contribution,
> > > > >> code
> > > > >> > will
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > be
> > > > >> > > > > > > > better, it would became common practice and part of
> > > Apache
> > > > >> > Ignite
> > > > >> > > > > > > > development culure.
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > If we will hope we will have free time to submit
> > > separate
> > > > >> patch
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > someday
> > > > >> > > > > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > > > have patience to complete patch-submission process,
> > code
> > > > >> will
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > remain
> > > > >> > > > > > > > undocumented and poor-readable.
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > Sincerely,
> > > > >> > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > пт, 20 апр. 2018 г. в 18:56, Александр Меньшиков <
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > sharplermc@gmail.com
> > > > >> > > > > > > :
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > 4) Metrics.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > partially +1
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > It makes sense to have some minimal code coverage
> > for
> > > > new
> > > > >> > code in
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > PR.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > IMHO.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > Also, we can limit the cyclomatic complexity of
> the
> > > new
> > > > >> code
> > > > >> > in
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > PR
> > > > >> > > > > > too.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > 6) Refactoring
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > -1
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > I understand why people want to refactor old code.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > But I think refactoring should be always a
> separate
> > > > task.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > And it's better to remove all refactoring from PR,
> > if
> > > > it's
> > > > >> > not
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > > sense
> > > > >> > > > > > > > of
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > the issue.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 16:54 GMT+03:00 Andrey Kuznetsov <
> > > > >> > stkuzma@gmail.com>:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > What about adding the following item to the
> > > checklist:
> > > > >> > when the
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > change
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > adds
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > new functionality, then unit tests should also
> be
> > > > >> > provided, if
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > it's
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > technically possible?
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > As for refactorings, in fact they are strongly
> > > > >> discouraged
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > today
> > > > >> > > > > > for
> > > > >> > > > > > > > some
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > unclear reason. Let's permit to make
> refactorings
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > checklist
> > > > >> > > > > > > > being
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > discussed. (Of cource, refactoring should relate
> > to
> > > > >> problem
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > being
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > solved.)
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 16:16 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > vozerov@gridgain.com
> > > > >> > > > > > :
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ed,
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately some of these points are not
> good
> > > > >> > candidates
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > for
> > > > >> > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > checklist because of these:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > - It must be clear and disallow *multiple
> > > > >> > interpretations*
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > - It must be *lightweight*, otherwise Ignite
> > > > >> development
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > would
> > > > >> > > > > > > > become a
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > nightmare
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > We cannot have "nice to have" points here.
> > > Checklist
> > > > >> > should
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > answer
> > > > >> > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > question "is ticket eligible to be merged?"
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Code style.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > +1
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  2) Documentation
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -1, it is impossible to define what is
> > > > >> > "well-documented". A
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > piece
> > > > >> > > > > > > of
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > code
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > could be obvious for one contributor, and
> > > > non-obvious
> > > > >> for
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > another.
> > > > >> > > > > > > In
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > any
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > case this is not a blocker for merge. Instead,
> > > > during
> > > > >> > review
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > one
> > > > >> > > > > > > can
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > ask
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > implementer to add more docs, but it cannot be
> > > > forced.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  3) Logging
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -1, same problem - what is "enough logging?".
> > > Enough
> > > > >> for
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > whom?
> > > > >> > > > > > How
> > > > >> > > > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > understand whether it is enough or not?
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  4) Metrics
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -1, no clear boundaries, and decision on
> whether
> > > > >> metrics
> > > > >> > are
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > be
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > added
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > not should be performed during design phase.
> As
> > > > >> before,
> > > > >> > it is
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > perfectly
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > valid to ask contributor to add metrics with
> > clear
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > explanation
> > > > >> > > > > > why,
> > > > >> > > > > > > > but
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > this is not part of the checklist.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5) TC status
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > +1, already mentioned
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  6) Refactoring
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Strong -1. OOP is a slippery slope, there are
> no
> > > > good
> > > > >> > and bad
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > receipts
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > all cases, hence it cannot be used in a
> > checklist.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > We can borrow useful rules from p.2, p.3 and
> p.4
> > > if
> > > > >> you
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > provide
> > > > >> > > > > > > clear
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > definitions on how to measure them.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Vladimir.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Eduard
> > > Shangareev <
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Also, I want to add some technical
> > requirement.
> > > > >> Let's
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > discuss
> > > > >> > > > > > > them.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Code style.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The code needs to be formatted according to
> > > coding
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > guidelines
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/
> confluence/display/IGNITE/
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > Coding+Guidelines
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > .
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > code must not contain TODOs without a ticket
> > > > >> reference.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > It is highly recommended to make major
> > > formatting
> > > > >> > changes
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > in
> > > > >> > > > > > > > existing
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > code
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > as a separate commit, to make review process
> > > more
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > practical.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Documentation.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Added code should be well-documented. Any
> > > methods
> > > > >> that
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > raise
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > questions
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > regarding their code flow, invariants,
> > > > >> synchronization,
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > etc.,
> > > > >> > > > > > > must
> > > > >> > > > > > > > be
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > documented with comprehensive javadoc. Any
> > > > reviewer
> > > > >> can
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > request
> > > > >> > > > > > > > that
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > particular added method be documented. Also,
> > it
> > > > is a
> > > > >> > good
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > practice
> > > > >> > > > > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > document old code in a 10-20 lines region
> > around
> > > > >> > changed
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > code.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 3) Logging.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Make sure that there are enough logging
> added
> > in
> > > > >> every
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > category
> > > > >> > > > > > > for
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > possible diagnostic in field. Check that
> > logging
> > > > >> > messages
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > are
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > properly
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > spelled.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 4) Metrics.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Are there any metrics that need to be
> exposed
> > to
> > > > >> user?
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 5) TC status.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Recheck that there are no new failing tests
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 6) Refactoring.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The code should be better than before:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - extract method from big one;
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - do anything else to make code clearer
> > > (don't
> > > > >> > forget
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > about
> > > > >> > > > > > > some
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    OOP-practise, replace if-else hell with
> > > > >> inheritance
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - split refactoring (renaming, code
> format)
> > > > from
> > > > >> > actual
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > changes
> > > > >> > > > > > > > by
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    separate commit
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:23 PM, Eduard
> > > > Shangareev <
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, guys.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that we should update
> maintainers
> > > list
> > > > >> > before
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > adding
> > > > >> > > > > > > > this
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > review
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > requirement.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > There should not be the situation when
> there
> > > is
> > > > >> only
> > > > >> > one
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > contributor
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > who
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > is responsible for a component.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > We already have issues with review speed
> and
> > > > >> response
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > time.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 2:17 PM, Anton
> > > > Vinogradov
> > > > >> <
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vova,
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Everything you described sound good to
> me.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to propose to create special
> page
> > > at
> > > > AI
> > > > >> > Wiki
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > describe
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > checklist.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case we'll find something should be
> > > > >> > changed/improved
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > > will
> > > > >> > > > > > > > be
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > update the page.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 0:53 GMT+03:00 Nikolay
> Izhikov
> > <
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > nizhikov@apache.org
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > :
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Vladimir.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for seting up this
> discussion.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As we discussed, I think an important
> > part
> > > > of
> > > > >> > this
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > check
> > > > >> > > > > > > list
> > > > >> > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > compatibility rules.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * What should be backward compatible?
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * How should we maintain it?
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) If ticket changes public API or
> > > > existing
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > behavior,
> > > > >> > > > > at
> > > > >> > > > > > > > least
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > two
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commiters should approve the changes
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can learn from other open source
> > > project
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > experience.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Apache Kafka [1], for example,
> requires
> > > > >> KIP(kafka
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > improvement
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > proposal)
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for *every* major change.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Major change definition includes
> public
> > > API.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > confluence/display/KAFKA/
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kafka+Improvement+Proposals
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > В Чт, 19/04/2018 в 23:00 +0300,
> Vladimir
> > > > >> Ozerov
> > > > >> > пишет:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's glad to see our community
> becomes
> > > > >> larger
> > > > >> > every
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > day.
> > > > >> > > > > > > But
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > as
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > grows
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes more and more difficult to
> > > manage
> > > > >> > review and
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > merge
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > processes
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > keep quality of our decisions at the
> > > > proper
> > > > >> > level.
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > More
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > contributors,
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commits, more components interlinked
> > > with
> > > > >> each
> > > > >> > other
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > in
> > > > >> > > > > > > > subtle
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > ways.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to propose to setup a
> > > formal
> > > > >> > review
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > checklist.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > This
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be a
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > set of actions every reviewer needs
> to
> > > > check
> > > > >> > before
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > approving
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > merge
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of a
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > certain feature. Passing the
> checklist
> > > > >> would be
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > *necessary
> > > > >> > > > > > > > but
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sufficient* phase before commit
> could
> > be
> > > > >> added
> > > > >> > to
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > main
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > branch.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > checklist would help us to detect a
> > lot
> > > of
> > > > >> > common
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > problems
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > such
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > broken
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests or bad UX earlier, and would
> > help
> > > > >> > contributors
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > lead
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > their
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > pull
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > requests to merge.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hallmarks of a good checklist:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - It must be followed be everyone
> > > without
> > > > >> > exceptions
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - It must be clear and disallow
> > multiple
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > interpretations
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - It must be lightweight, otherwise
> > > Ignite
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > development
> > > > >> > > > > > > would
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > become
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nightmare
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - It must be non-blocking, i.e.
> > > > >> inacessibility
> > > > >> > of a
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > single
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > contributor
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should not block ticket progress
> > > forever.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please let me know if you think the
> > idea
> > > > >> makes
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > sense.
> > > > >> > > > > If
> > > > >> > > > > > > we
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > agree
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it,
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > let's start defining action items
> for
> > > the
> > > > >> > checklist.
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > My
> > > > >> > > > > > 2
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > cents:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) All unit tests pass on TC without
> > new
> > > > >> > failures
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) If ticket targets specific
> > component,
> > > > it
> > > > >> > should
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > be
> > > > >> > > > > > > > reviewed
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > by
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > component's maintainer*
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) If ticket changes public API or
> > > > existing
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > behavior,
> > > > >> > > > > at
> > > > >> > > > > > > > least
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > two
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commiters should approve the changes
> > **
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vladimir.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * TBD: Review component list and
> > define
> > > > >> > maintainers;
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > define
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > what
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > do if
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > maintainer is unavailable
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ** TBD: Define what is "public API"
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >   Andrey Kuznetsov.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > --
> > > > >> > > > Best regards,
> > > > >> > > >   Andrey Kuznetsov.
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>



-- 
Best regards,
  Andrey Kuznetsov.

Re: Ticket review checklist

[Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>]

Alex,

It is not sounds like that, obviously.

Tests should cover all negative and positive cases.
You should add enough tests to cover all cases.

Sometimes one test can cover more than one case, so two tests *CAN*
partially check same things.
In case some cases already covered you should not create duplicates.

вт, 8 мая 2018 г. в 10:19, Александр Меньшиков <sh...@gmail.com>:

> Vladimir, the 3.1 is a bit unclear for me. Which code coverage is
> acceptable? Now it sounds like two tests are enough (one for positive and
> one for negative cases).
>
> 2018-05-07 23:09 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>:
>
> > Is this list on the Wiki?
> >
> > On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 7:26 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Igniters,
> > >
> > > This is the checklist I have at the moment. Please let me know if you
> > have
> > > any comments on existing items, or want to add or remove anything. It
> > looks
> > > like we may have not only strict rules, but *nice to have* points here
> as
> > > well with help of *MUST*, *SHOULD* and *MAY* words as per RFC2119 [1].
> So
> > > please feel free to suggest optional items as well.
> > >
> > > 1) API
> > > 1.1) API compatibility *MUST* be maintained between minor releases. Do
> > not
> > > remove existing methods or change their signatures, deprecate them
> > instead
> > > 1.2) Default behaviour "SHOULD NOT* be changed between minor releases,
> > > unless absolutely needed. If change is made, it *MUST* be described in
> > > "Migration Guide"
> > > 1.3) New operation *MUST* be well-documented in code (javadoc,
> > dotnetdoc):
> > > documentation must contain method's purpose, description of parameters
> > and
> > > how their values affect the outcome, description of return value and
> it's
> > > default, behavior in negative cases, interaction with other operations
> > and
> > > components
> > > 1.4) API parity between Java and .NET platforms *SHOULD* be maintained
> > when
> > > operation makes sense on both platforms. If method cannot be
> implemented
> > in
> > > a platform immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be created and linked to
> > > current ticket
> > > 1.5) API parity between thin clients (Java, .NET) *SHOULD* be
> maintained
> > > when operation makes sense on several clients. If method cannot be
> > > implemented in a client immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be created
> > and
> > > linked to current ticket
> > > 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user *MUST* have explanation how to
> > > resolve, workaround or debug an error
> > >
> > > 2) Compatibility
> > > 2.1) Persistence backward compatibility *MUST* be maintained between
> > minor
> > > releases. It should be possible to start newer version on data files
> > > created by the previous version
> > > 2.2) Thin client forward and backward compatibility *SHOULD* be
> > maintained
> > > between two consecutive minor releases. If compatibility cannot be
> > > maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
> > > 2.3) JDBC and ODBC forward and backward compatibility *SHOULD* be
> > > maintained between two consecutive minor releases. If compatibility
> > cannot
> > > be maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
> > >
> > > 3) Tests
> > > 3.1) New functionality *MUST* be covered with unit tests for both
> > positive
> > > and negative use cases
> > > 3.2) All test suites *MUST* be run before merge to master..There *MUST*
> > be
> > > no new test failures
> > >
> > > 4) Code style *MUST* be followed as per Ignite's Coding Guidelines
> > >
> > > Vladimir.
> > >
> > > [1] https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
> > >
> > > On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Dmitry,
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I'll do that in the nearest days.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <
> dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Igniters, the idea was related to small refactorings co-located with
> > > main
> > > >> change.
> > > >>
> > > >> Main change itself indicates that existing code did not meet the
> > > criteria
> > > >> of practice. Approving of standalone refactorings instead
> contradicts
> > > with
> > > >> principle don't touch if it works. So I still like idea of
> co-located
> > > >> changes improving code, javadocs, style, etc.
> > > >>
> > > >> But let's not argue about this point now, let's summarize the
> > undisputed
> > > >> points and add it to the wiki. Vladimir, would you please do it?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> ср, 25 апр. 2018 г. в 16:42, Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Igniters,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I agree with Vova.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Don't fix if it works!
> > > >> >
> > > >> > If you 100% sure then it a useful addition to the product - just
> > make
> > > a
> > > >> > separate ticket.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > В Ср, 25/04/2018 в 11:44 +0300, Vladimir Ozerov пишет:
> > > >> > > Guys,
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > The problem with in-place refactorings is that you increase
> > affected
> > > >> > scope.
> > > >> > > It is not uncommon to break compatibility or public contracts
> with
> > > >> even
> > > >> > > minor things. E.g. recently we decided drop org.jsr166 package
> in
> > > >> favor
> > > >> > of
> > > >> > > Java 8 classes. Innocent change. Result - broken storage.
> Another
> > > >> problem
> > > >> > > is conflicts. It is not uncommon to have long-lived branches
> which
> > > we
> > > >> > need
> > > >> > > to merge with master over and over again. And a lot of
> > refactorings
> > > >> cause
> > > >> > > conflicts. It is much easier to resolve them if you know that
> > logic
> > > >> was
> > > >> > not
> > > >> > > affected as opposed to cases when you need to resolve both
> renames
> > > and
> > > >> > > method extractions along with business-logic changes.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > I'd like to repeat - if you have a time for refactoring then you
> > > >> > definitely
> > > >> > > have a time to extract these changes to separate PR and submit a
> > > >> separate
> > > >> > > ticket. I am quite understand what "low priority" do you mean if
> > you
> > > >> do
> > > >> > > refactorings on your own.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 10:52 PM, Andrey Kuznetsov <
> > > stkuzma@gmail.com
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > wrote:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > +1.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Once again, I beg for "small refactoring permission" in a
> > > checklist.
> > > >> > As of
> > > >> > > > today, separate tickets for small refactorings has lowest
> > > priority,
> > > >> > since
> > > >> > > > they neither fix any flaw nor add new functionality. Also, the
> > > >> > attempts to
> > > >> > > > make issue-related code safer / cleaner / more readable in
> > "real"
> > > >> pull
> > > >> > > > requests are typically rejected, since they contradict our
> > current
> > > >> > > > guidelines.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > I understand this will require a bit more effort from
> > > >> > committer/maintainer,
> > > >> > > > but otherwise we will get constantly degrading code quality.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > 2018-04-24 18:52 GMT+03:00 Eduard Shangareev <
> > > >> > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com
> > > >> > > > > :
> > > >> > > > > Vladimir,
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > I am not talking about massive/sophisticated refactoring.
> But
> > I
> > > >> > believe
> > > >> > > > > that ask to extract some methods should be OK to do without
> an
> > > >> extra
> > > >> > > > > ticket.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > A checklist shouldn't be necessarily a set of certain rules
> > but
> > > >> also
> > > >> > it
> > > >> > > > > could include suggestion and reminders.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 6:39 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > >> > vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > Ed,
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > Refactoring is a separate task. If you would like to
> rework
> > > >> > exchange
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > future
> > > >> > > > > > - please do this in a ticket "Refactor exchange task",
> > nobody
> > > >> would
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > against
> > > >> > > > > > this. This is just a matter of creating separate ticket
> and
> > > >> > separate
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > PR.
> > > >> > > > > If
> > > >> > > > > > one have a time for refactoring, it should not be a
> problem
> > > for
> > > >> > him to
> > > >> > > > > > spend several minutes on JIRA and GitHub.
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > As far as documentation - what you describe is normal
> review
> > > >> > process,
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > when
> > > >> > > > > > reviewer might want to ask contributor to fix something.
> > > >> Checklist
> > > >> > is a
> > > >> > > > > > different thing - this is a set of rules which must be
> > > followed
> > > >> by
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > anyone.
> > > >> > > > > > I do not understand how you can define documentation in
> this
> > > >> > checklist.
> > > >> > > > > > Same problem with logging - what is "enough"?
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Eduard Shangareev <
> > > >> > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > I don't understand why you are so against refactoring.
> > > >> > > > > > > Code already smells like hell. Methods 200+ line is
> > normal.
> > > >> > Exchange
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > future
> > > >> > > > > > > is asking to be separated on several one. Transaction
> code
> > > >> could
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > understand
> > > >> > > > > > > few people.
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > If we separate refactoring from development it would
> mean
> > > that
> > > >> > no one
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > will
> > > >> > > > > > > do it.
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > 2) Documentation.
> > > >> > > > > > > Everything which was asked by reviewers to clarify idea
> > > >> should be
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > reflected
> > > >> > > > > > > in the code.
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > 3) Logging.
> > > >> > > > > > > Logging should be enough to troubleshoot the problem if
> > > >> someone
> > > >> > comes
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > > user-list with an issue in the code.
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 7:06 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> > > >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > +1 to idea of checklist.
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > +1 to refactoring and documenting code related to
> ticket
> > > in
> > > >> > +/-20
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > LOC
> > > >> > > > > > at
> > > >> > > > > > > > least.
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > If we start to do it as part of our regular
> > contribution,
> > > >> code
> > > >> > will
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > be
> > > >> > > > > > > > better, it would became common practice and part of
> > Apache
> > > >> > Ignite
> > > >> > > > > > > > development culure.
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > If we will hope we will have free time to submit
> > separate
> > > >> patch
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > someday
> > > >> > > > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > > > have patience to complete patch-submission process,
> code
> > > >> will
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > remain
> > > >> > > > > > > > undocumented and poor-readable.
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > Sincerely,
> > > >> > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > пт, 20 апр. 2018 г. в 18:56, Александр Меньшиков <
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > sharplermc@gmail.com
> > > >> > > > > > > :
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > 4) Metrics.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > partially +1
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > It makes sense to have some minimal code coverage
> for
> > > new
> > > >> > code in
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > PR.
> > > >> > > > > > > > IMHO.
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > Also, we can limit the cyclomatic complexity of the
> > new
> > > >> code
> > > >> > in
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > PR
> > > >> > > > > > too.
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > 6) Refactoring
> > > >> > > > > > > > > -1
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > I understand why people want to refactor old code.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > But I think refactoring should be always a separate
> > > task.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > And it's better to remove all refactoring from PR,
> if
> > > it's
> > > >> > not
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > > sense
> > > >> > > > > > > > of
> > > >> > > > > > > > > the issue.
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 16:54 GMT+03:00 Andrey Kuznetsov <
> > > >> > stkuzma@gmail.com>:
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > What about adding the following item to the
> > checklist:
> > > >> > when the
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > change
> > > >> > > > > > > > > adds
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > new functionality, then unit tests should also be
> > > >> > provided, if
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > it's
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > technically possible?
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > As for refactorings, in fact they are strongly
> > > >> discouraged
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > today
> > > >> > > > > > for
> > > >> > > > > > > > some
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > unclear reason. Let's permit to make refactorings
> in
> > > the
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > checklist
> > > >> > > > > > > > being
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > discussed. (Of cource, refactoring should relate
> to
> > > >> problem
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > being
> > > >> > > > > > > > > solved.)
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 16:16 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > vozerov@gridgain.com
> > > >> > > > > > :
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ed,
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately some of these points are not good
> > > >> > candidates
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > for
> > > >> > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > checklist because of these:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > - It must be clear and disallow *multiple
> > > >> > interpretations*
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > - It must be *lightweight*, otherwise Ignite
> > > >> development
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > would
> > > >> > > > > > > > become a
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > nightmare
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > We cannot have "nice to have" points here.
> > Checklist
> > > >> > should
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > answer
> > > >> > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > question "is ticket eligible to be merged?"
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Code style.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > +1
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  2) Documentation
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -1, it is impossible to define what is
> > > >> > "well-documented". A
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > piece
> > > >> > > > > > > of
> > > >> > > > > > > > > code
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > could be obvious for one contributor, and
> > > non-obvious
> > > >> for
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > another.
> > > >> > > > > > > In
> > > >> > > > > > > > > any
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > case this is not a blocker for merge. Instead,
> > > during
> > > >> > review
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > one
> > > >> > > > > > > can
> > > >> > > > > > > > > ask
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > implementer to add more docs, but it cannot be
> > > forced.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  3) Logging
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -1, same problem - what is "enough logging?".
> > Enough
> > > >> for
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > whom?
> > > >> > > > > > How
> > > >> > > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > understand whether it is enough or not?
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  4) Metrics
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -1, no clear boundaries, and decision on whether
> > > >> metrics
> > > >> > are
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > be
> > > >> > > > > > > > > added
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > or
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > not should be performed during design phase. As
> > > >> before,
> > > >> > it is
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > perfectly
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > valid to ask contributor to add metrics with
> clear
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > explanation
> > > >> > > > > > why,
> > > >> > > > > > > > but
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > this is not part of the checklist.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5) TC status
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > +1, already mentioned
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  6) Refactoring
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Strong -1. OOP is a slippery slope, there are no
> > > good
> > > >> > and bad
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > receipts
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > all cases, hence it cannot be used in a
> checklist.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > We can borrow useful rules from p.2, p.3 and p.4
> > if
> > > >> you
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > provide
> > > >> > > > > > > clear
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > definitions on how to measure them.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Vladimir.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Eduard
> > Shangareev <
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Also, I want to add some technical
> requirement.
> > > >> Let's
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > discuss
> > > >> > > > > > > them.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Code style.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The code needs to be formatted according to
> > coding
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > guidelines
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > Coding+Guidelines
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > .
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > code must not contain TODOs without a ticket
> > > >> reference.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > It is highly recommended to make major
> > formatting
> > > >> > changes
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > in
> > > >> > > > > > > > existing
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > code
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > as a separate commit, to make review process
> > more
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > practical.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Documentation.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Added code should be well-documented. Any
> > methods
> > > >> that
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > raise
> > > >> > > > > > > > > questions
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > regarding their code flow, invariants,
> > > >> synchronization,
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > etc.,
> > > >> > > > > > > must
> > > >> > > > > > > > be
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > documented with comprehensive javadoc. Any
> > > reviewer
> > > >> can
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > request
> > > >> > > > > > > > that
> > > >> > > > > > > > > a
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > particular added method be documented. Also,
> it
> > > is a
> > > >> > good
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > practice
> > > >> > > > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > document old code in a 10-20 lines region
> around
> > > >> > changed
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > code.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 3) Logging.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Make sure that there are enough logging added
> in
> > > >> every
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > category
> > > >> > > > > > > for
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > possible diagnostic in field. Check that
> logging
> > > >> > messages
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > are
> > > >> > > > > > > > > properly
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > spelled.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 4) Metrics.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Are there any metrics that need to be exposed
> to
> > > >> user?
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 5) TC status.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Recheck that there are no new failing tests
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 6) Refactoring.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The code should be better than before:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - extract method from big one;
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - do anything else to make code clearer
> > (don't
> > > >> > forget
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > about
> > > >> > > > > > > some
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    OOP-practise, replace if-else hell with
> > > >> inheritance
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - split refactoring (renaming, code format)
> > > from
> > > >> > actual
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > changes
> > > >> > > > > > > > by
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    separate commit
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:23 PM, Eduard
> > > Shangareev <
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, guys.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that we should update maintainers
> > list
> > > >> > before
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > adding
> > > >> > > > > > > > this
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > review
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > requirement.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > There should not be the situation when there
> > is
> > > >> only
> > > >> > one
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > contributor
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > who
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > is responsible for a component.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > We already have issues with review speed and
> > > >> response
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > time.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 2:17 PM, Anton
> > > Vinogradov
> > > >> <
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vova,
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Everything you described sound good to me.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to propose to create special page
> > at
> > > AI
> > > >> > Wiki
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > and
> > > >> > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > describe
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > checklist.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case we'll find something should be
> > > >> > changed/improved
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > > will
> > > >> > > > > > > > be
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > update the page.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 0:53 GMT+03:00 Nikolay Izhikov
> <
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > nizhikov@apache.org
> > > >> > > > > > > > > :
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Vladimir.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for seting up this discussion.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As we discussed, I think an important
> part
> > > of
> > > >> > this
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > check
> > > >> > > > > > > list
> > > >> > > > > > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > compatibility rules.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * What should be backward compatible?
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * How should we maintain it?
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) If ticket changes public API or
> > > existing
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > behavior,
> > > >> > > > > at
> > > >> > > > > > > > least
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > two
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commiters should approve the changes
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can learn from other open source
> > project
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > experience.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Apache Kafka [1], for example, requires
> > > >> KIP(kafka
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > improvement
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > proposal)
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for *every* major change.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Major change definition includes public
> > API.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > confluence/display/KAFKA/
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kafka+Improvement+Proposals
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > В Чт, 19/04/2018 в 23:00 +0300, Vladimir
> > > >> Ozerov
> > > >> > пишет:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's glad to see our community becomes
> > > >> larger
> > > >> > every
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > day.
> > > >> > > > > > > But
> > > >> > > > > > > > > as
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > grows
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes more and more difficult to
> > manage
> > > >> > review and
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > merge
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > processes
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > keep quality of our decisions at the
> > > proper
> > > >> > level.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > More
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > contributors,
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commits, more components interlinked
> > with
> > > >> each
> > > >> > other
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > in
> > > >> > > > > > > > subtle
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > ways.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to propose to setup a
> > formal
> > > >> > review
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > checklist.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > This
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be a
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > set of actions every reviewer needs to
> > > check
> > > >> > before
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > approving
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > merge
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of a
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > certain feature. Passing the checklist
> > > >> would be
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > *necessary
> > > >> > > > > > > > but
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > not
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sufficient* phase before commit could
> be
> > > >> added
> > > >> > to
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > main
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > branch.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > checklist would help us to detect a
> lot
> > of
> > > >> > common
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > problems
> > > >> > > > > > > > > such
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > a
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > broken
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests or bad UX earlier, and would
> help
> > > >> > contributors
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > lead
> > > >> > > > > > > > > their
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > pull
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > requests to merge.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hallmarks of a good checklist:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - It must be followed be everyone
> > without
> > > >> > exceptions
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - It must be clear and disallow
> multiple
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > interpretations
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - It must be lightweight, otherwise
> > Ignite
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > development
> > > >> > > > > > > would
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > become
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nightmare
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - It must be non-blocking, i.e.
> > > >> inacessibility
> > > >> > of a
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > single
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > contributor
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should not block ticket progress
> > forever.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please let me know if you think the
> idea
> > > >> makes
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > sense.
> > > >> > > > > If
> > > >> > > > > > > we
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > agree
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it,
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > let's start defining action items for
> > the
> > > >> > checklist.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > My
> > > >> > > > > > 2
> > > >> > > > > > > > > cents:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) All unit tests pass on TC without
> new
> > > >> > failures
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) If ticket targets specific
> component,
> > > it
> > > >> > should
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > be
> > > >> > > > > > > > reviewed
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > by
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > component's maintainer*
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) If ticket changes public API or
> > > existing
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > behavior,
> > > >> > > > > at
> > > >> > > > > > > > least
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > two
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commiters should approve the changes
> **
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts?
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vladimir.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * TBD: Review component list and
> define
> > > >> > maintainers;
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > define
> > > >> > > > > > > > > what
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > do if
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > maintainer is unavailable
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ** TBD: Define what is "public API"
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >   Andrey Kuznetsov.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > --
> > > >> > > > Best regards,
> > > >> > > >   Andrey Kuznetsov.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Ticket review checklist

[Александр Меньшиков <sh...@gmail.com>]

Vladimir, the 3.1 is a bit unclear for me. Which code coverage is
acceptable? Now it sounds like two tests are enough (one for positive and
one for negative cases).

2018-05-07 23:09 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>:

> Is this list on the Wiki?
>
> On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 7:26 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Igniters,
> >
> > This is the checklist I have at the moment. Please let me know if you
> have
> > any comments on existing items, or want to add or remove anything. It
> looks
> > like we may have not only strict rules, but *nice to have* points here as
> > well with help of *MUST*, *SHOULD* and *MAY* words as per RFC2119 [1]. So
> > please feel free to suggest optional items as well.
> >
> > 1) API
> > 1.1) API compatibility *MUST* be maintained between minor releases. Do
> not
> > remove existing methods or change their signatures, deprecate them
> instead
> > 1.2) Default behaviour "SHOULD NOT* be changed between minor releases,
> > unless absolutely needed. If change is made, it *MUST* be described in
> > "Migration Guide"
> > 1.3) New operation *MUST* be well-documented in code (javadoc,
> dotnetdoc):
> > documentation must contain method's purpose, description of parameters
> and
> > how their values affect the outcome, description of return value and it's
> > default, behavior in negative cases, interaction with other operations
> and
> > components
> > 1.4) API parity between Java and .NET platforms *SHOULD* be maintained
> when
> > operation makes sense on both platforms. If method cannot be implemented
> in
> > a platform immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be created and linked to
> > current ticket
> > 1.5) API parity between thin clients (Java, .NET) *SHOULD* be maintained
> > when operation makes sense on several clients. If method cannot be
> > implemented in a client immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be created
> and
> > linked to current ticket
> > 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user *MUST* have explanation how to
> > resolve, workaround or debug an error
> >
> > 2) Compatibility
> > 2.1) Persistence backward compatibility *MUST* be maintained between
> minor
> > releases. It should be possible to start newer version on data files
> > created by the previous version
> > 2.2) Thin client forward and backward compatibility *SHOULD* be
> maintained
> > between two consecutive minor releases. If compatibility cannot be
> > maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
> > 2.3) JDBC and ODBC forward and backward compatibility *SHOULD* be
> > maintained between two consecutive minor releases. If compatibility
> cannot
> > be maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
> >
> > 3) Tests
> > 3.1) New functionality *MUST* be covered with unit tests for both
> positive
> > and negative use cases
> > 3.2) All test suites *MUST* be run before merge to master..There *MUST*
> be
> > no new test failures
> >
> > 4) Code style *MUST* be followed as per Ignite's Coding Guidelines
> >
> > Vladimir.
> >
> > [1] https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
> >
> > On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Dmitry,
> > >
> > > Yes, I'll do that in the nearest days.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <dp...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Igniters, the idea was related to small refactorings co-located with
> > main
> > >> change.
> > >>
> > >> Main change itself indicates that existing code did not meet the
> > criteria
> > >> of practice. Approving of standalone refactorings instead contradicts
> > with
> > >> principle don't touch if it works. So I still like idea of co-located
> > >> changes improving code, javadocs, style, etc.
> > >>
> > >> But let's not argue about this point now, let's summarize the
> undisputed
> > >> points and add it to the wiki. Vladimir, would you please do it?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ср, 25 апр. 2018 г. в 16:42, Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>:
> > >>
> > >> > Igniters,
> > >> >
> > >> > I agree with Vova.
> > >> >
> > >> > Don't fix if it works!
> > >> >
> > >> > If you 100% sure then it a useful addition to the product - just
> make
> > a
> > >> > separate ticket.
> > >> >
> > >> > В Ср, 25/04/2018 в 11:44 +0300, Vladimir Ozerov пишет:
> > >> > > Guys,
> > >> > >
> > >> > > The problem with in-place refactorings is that you increase
> affected
> > >> > scope.
> > >> > > It is not uncommon to break compatibility or public contracts with
> > >> even
> > >> > > minor things. E.g. recently we decided drop org.jsr166 package in
> > >> favor
> > >> > of
> > >> > > Java 8 classes. Innocent change. Result - broken storage. Another
> > >> problem
> > >> > > is conflicts. It is not uncommon to have long-lived branches which
> > we
> > >> > need
> > >> > > to merge with master over and over again. And a lot of
> refactorings
> > >> cause
> > >> > > conflicts. It is much easier to resolve them if you know that
> logic
> > >> was
> > >> > not
> > >> > > affected as opposed to cases when you need to resolve both renames
> > and
> > >> > > method extractions along with business-logic changes.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > I'd like to repeat - if you have a time for refactoring then you
> > >> > definitely
> > >> > > have a time to extract these changes to separate PR and submit a
> > >> separate
> > >> > > ticket. I am quite understand what "low priority" do you mean if
> you
> > >> do
> > >> > > refactorings on your own.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 10:52 PM, Andrey Kuznetsov <
> > stkuzma@gmail.com
> > >> >
> > >> > > wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > +1.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Once again, I beg for "small refactoring permission" in a
> > checklist.
> > >> > As of
> > >> > > > today, separate tickets for small refactorings has lowest
> > priority,
> > >> > since
> > >> > > > they neither fix any flaw nor add new functionality. Also, the
> > >> > attempts to
> > >> > > > make issue-related code safer / cleaner / more readable in
> "real"
> > >> pull
> > >> > > > requests are typically rejected, since they contradict our
> current
> > >> > > > guidelines.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > I understand this will require a bit more effort from
> > >> > committer/maintainer,
> > >> > > > but otherwise we will get constantly degrading code quality.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > 2018-04-24 18:52 GMT+03:00 Eduard Shangareev <
> > >> > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com
> > >> > > > > :
> > >> > > > > Vladimir,
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > I am not talking about massive/sophisticated refactoring. But
> I
> > >> > believe
> > >> > > > > that ask to extract some methods should be OK to do without an
> > >> extra
> > >> > > > > ticket.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > A checklist shouldn't be necessarily a set of certain rules
> but
> > >> also
> > >> > it
> > >> > > > > could include suggestion and reminders.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 6:39 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > >> > vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > >> > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Ed,
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Refactoring is a separate task. If you would like to rework
> > >> > exchange
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > future
> > >> > > > > > - please do this in a ticket "Refactor exchange task",
> nobody
> > >> would
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > against
> > >> > > > > > this. This is just a matter of creating separate ticket and
> > >> > separate
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > PR.
> > >> > > > > If
> > >> > > > > > one have a time for refactoring, it should not be a problem
> > for
> > >> > him to
> > >> > > > > > spend several minutes on JIRA and GitHub.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > As far as documentation - what you describe is normal review
> > >> > process,
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > when
> > >> > > > > > reviewer might want to ask contributor to fix something.
> > >> Checklist
> > >> > is a
> > >> > > > > > different thing - this is a set of rules which must be
> > followed
> > >> by
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > anyone.
> > >> > > > > > I do not understand how you can define documentation in this
> > >> > checklist.
> > >> > > > > > Same problem with logging - what is "enough"?
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Eduard Shangareev <
> > >> > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > Igniters,
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > I don't understand why you are so against refactoring.
> > >> > > > > > > Code already smells like hell. Methods 200+ line is
> normal.
> > >> > Exchange
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > future
> > >> > > > > > > is asking to be separated on several one. Transaction code
> > >> could
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > understand
> > >> > > > > > > few people.
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > If we separate refactoring from development it would mean
> > that
> > >> > no one
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > will
> > >> > > > > > > do it.
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > 2) Documentation.
> > >> > > > > > > Everything which was asked by reviewers to clarify idea
> > >> should be
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > reflected
> > >> > > > > > > in the code.
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > 3) Logging.
> > >> > > > > > > Logging should be enough to troubleshoot the problem if
> > >> someone
> > >> > comes
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > > user-list with an issue in the code.
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 7:06 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> > >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > +1 to idea of checklist.
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > +1 to refactoring and documenting code related to ticket
> > in
> > >> > +/-20
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > LOC
> > >> > > > > > at
> > >> > > > > > > > least.
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > If we start to do it as part of our regular
> contribution,
> > >> code
> > >> > will
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > be
> > >> > > > > > > > better, it would became common practice and part of
> Apache
> > >> > Ignite
> > >> > > > > > > > development culure.
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > If we will hope we will have free time to submit
> separate
> > >> patch
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > someday
> > >> > > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > > > have patience to complete patch-submission process, code
> > >> will
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > remain
> > >> > > > > > > > undocumented and poor-readable.
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > Sincerely,
> > >> > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > пт, 20 апр. 2018 г. в 18:56, Александр Меньшиков <
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > sharplermc@gmail.com
> > >> > > > > > > :
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > 4) Metrics.
> > >> > > > > > > > > partially +1
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > It makes sense to have some minimal code coverage for
> > new
> > >> > code in
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > PR.
> > >> > > > > > > > IMHO.
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > Also, we can limit the cyclomatic complexity of the
> new
> > >> code
> > >> > in
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > PR
> > >> > > > > > too.
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > 6) Refactoring
> > >> > > > > > > > > -1
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > I understand why people want to refactor old code.
> > >> > > > > > > > > But I think refactoring should be always a separate
> > task.
> > >> > > > > > > > > And it's better to remove all refactoring from PR, if
> > it's
> > >> > not
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > the
> > >> > > > > > > sense
> > >> > > > > > > > of
> > >> > > > > > > > > the issue.
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 16:54 GMT+03:00 Andrey Kuznetsov <
> > >> > stkuzma@gmail.com>:
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > What about adding the following item to the
> checklist:
> > >> > when the
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > change
> > >> > > > > > > > > adds
> > >> > > > > > > > > > new functionality, then unit tests should also be
> > >> > provided, if
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > it's
> > >> > > > > > > > > > technically possible?
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > As for refactorings, in fact they are strongly
> > >> discouraged
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > today
> > >> > > > > > for
> > >> > > > > > > > some
> > >> > > > > > > > > > unclear reason. Let's permit to make refactorings in
> > the
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > checklist
> > >> > > > > > > > being
> > >> > > > > > > > > > discussed. (Of cource, refactoring should relate to
> > >> problem
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > being
> > >> > > > > > > > > solved.)
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 16:16 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > vozerov@gridgain.com
> > >> > > > > > :
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ed,
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately some of these points are not good
> > >> > candidates
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > for
> > >> > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > checklist because of these:
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > - It must be clear and disallow *multiple
> > >> > interpretations*
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > - It must be *lightweight*, otherwise Ignite
> > >> development
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > would
> > >> > > > > > > > become a
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > nightmare
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > We cannot have "nice to have" points here.
> Checklist
> > >> > should
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > answer
> > >> > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > question "is ticket eligible to be merged?"
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Code style.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > +1
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  2) Documentation
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > -1, it is impossible to define what is
> > >> > "well-documented". A
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > piece
> > >> > > > > > > of
> > >> > > > > > > > > code
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > could be obvious for one contributor, and
> > non-obvious
> > >> for
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > another.
> > >> > > > > > > In
> > >> > > > > > > > > any
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > case this is not a blocker for merge. Instead,
> > during
> > >> > review
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > one
> > >> > > > > > > can
> > >> > > > > > > > > ask
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > implementer to add more docs, but it cannot be
> > forced.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  3) Logging
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > -1, same problem - what is "enough logging?".
> Enough
> > >> for
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > whom?
> > >> > > > > > How
> > >> > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > understand whether it is enough or not?
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  4) Metrics
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > -1, no clear boundaries, and decision on whether
> > >> metrics
> > >> > are
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > to
> > >> > > > > > be
> > >> > > > > > > > > added
> > >> > > > > > > > > > or
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > not should be performed during design phase. As
> > >> before,
> > >> > it is
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > perfectly
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > valid to ask contributor to add metrics with clear
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > explanation
> > >> > > > > > why,
> > >> > > > > > > > but
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > this is not part of the checklist.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5) TC status
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > +1, already mentioned
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  6) Refactoring
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > Strong -1. OOP is a slippery slope, there are no
> > good
> > >> > and bad
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > receipts
> > >> > > > > > > > > > for
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > all cases, hence it cannot be used in a checklist.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > We can borrow useful rules from p.2, p.3 and p.4
> if
> > >> you
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > provide
> > >> > > > > > > clear
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > definitions on how to measure them.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > Vladimir.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Eduard
> Shangareev <
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Also, I want to add some technical requirement.
> > >> Let's
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > discuss
> > >> > > > > > > them.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Code style.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The code needs to be formatted according to
> coding
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > guidelines
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > Coding+Guidelines
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > .
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > code must not contain TODOs without a ticket
> > >> reference.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > It is highly recommended to make major
> formatting
> > >> > changes
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > in
> > >> > > > > > > > existing
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > code
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > as a separate commit, to make review process
> more
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > practical.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Documentation.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Added code should be well-documented. Any
> methods
> > >> that
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > raise
> > >> > > > > > > > > questions
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > regarding their code flow, invariants,
> > >> synchronization,
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > etc.,
> > >> > > > > > > must
> > >> > > > > > > > be
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > documented with comprehensive javadoc. Any
> > reviewer
> > >> can
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > request
> > >> > > > > > > > that
> > >> > > > > > > > > a
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > particular added method be documented. Also, it
> > is a
> > >> > good
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > practice
> > >> > > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > document old code in a 10-20 lines region around
> > >> > changed
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > code.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 3) Logging.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Make sure that there are enough logging added in
> > >> every
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > category
> > >> > > > > > > for
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > possible diagnostic in field. Check that logging
> > >> > messages
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > are
> > >> > > > > > > > > properly
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > spelled.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 4) Metrics.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Are there any metrics that need to be exposed to
> > >> user?
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 5) TC status.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Recheck that there are no new failing tests
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 6) Refactoring.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The code should be better than before:
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - extract method from big one;
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - do anything else to make code clearer
> (don't
> > >> > forget
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > about
> > >> > > > > > > some
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    OOP-practise, replace if-else hell with
> > >> inheritance
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - split refactoring (renaming, code format)
> > from
> > >> > actual
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > changes
> > >> > > > > > > > by
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >    separate commit
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:23 PM, Eduard
> > Shangareev <
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, guys.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that we should update maintainers
> list
> > >> > before
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > adding
> > >> > > > > > > > this
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > review
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > requirement.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > There should not be the situation when there
> is
> > >> only
> > >> > one
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > contributor
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > who
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > is responsible for a component.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > We already have issues with review speed and
> > >> response
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > time.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 2:17 PM, Anton
> > Vinogradov
> > >> <
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > av@apache.org
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vova,
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Everything you described sound good to me.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to propose to create special page
> at
> > AI
> > >> > Wiki
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > and
> > >> > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > > > > > describe
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > checklist.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case we'll find something should be
> > >> > changed/improved
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > it
> > >> > > > > > > will
> > >> > > > > > > > be
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > update the page.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 0:53 GMT+03:00 Nikolay Izhikov <
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > nizhikov@apache.org
> > >> > > > > > > > > :
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Vladimir.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for seting up this discussion.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As we discussed, I think an important part
> > of
> > >> > this
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > check
> > >> > > > > > > list
> > >> > > > > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > compatibility rules.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * What should be backward compatible?
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * How should we maintain it?
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) If ticket changes public API or
> > existing
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > behavior,
> > >> > > > > at
> > >> > > > > > > > least
> > >> > > > > > > > > > two
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commiters should approve the changes
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can learn from other open source
> project
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > experience.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Apache Kafka [1], for example, requires
> > >> KIP(kafka
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > improvement
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > proposal)
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for *every* major change.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Major change definition includes public
> API.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > confluence/display/KAFKA/
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kafka+Improvement+Proposals
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > В Чт, 19/04/2018 в 23:00 +0300, Vladimir
> > >> Ozerov
> > >> > пишет:
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's glad to see our community becomes
> > >> larger
> > >> > every
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > day.
> > >> > > > > > > But
> > >> > > > > > > > > as
> > >> > > > > > > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > grows
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes more and more difficult to
> manage
> > >> > review and
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > merge
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > processes
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > keep quality of our decisions at the
> > proper
> > >> > level.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > More
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > contributors,
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commits, more components interlinked
> with
> > >> each
> > >> > other
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > in
> > >> > > > > > > > subtle
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > ways.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to propose to setup a
> formal
> > >> > review
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > checklist.
> > >> > > > > > > > > This
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be a
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > set of actions every reviewer needs to
> > check
> > >> > before
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > approving
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > merge
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of a
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > certain feature. Passing the checklist
> > >> would be
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > *necessary
> > >> > > > > > > > but
> > >> > > > > > > > > > not
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sufficient* phase before commit could be
> > >> added
> > >> > to
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > the
> > >> > > > > > main
> > >> > > > > > > > > > branch.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > checklist would help us to detect a lot
> of
> > >> > common
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > problems
> > >> > > > > > > > > such
> > >> > > > > > > > > > a
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > broken
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests or bad UX earlier, and would help
> > >> > contributors
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > lead
> > >> > > > > > > > > their
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > pull
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > requests to merge.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hallmarks of a good checklist:
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - It must be followed be everyone
> without
> > >> > exceptions
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - It must be clear and disallow multiple
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > interpretations
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - It must be lightweight, otherwise
> Ignite
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > development
> > >> > > > > > > would
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > become
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nightmare
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - It must be non-blocking, i.e.
> > >> inacessibility
> > >> > of a
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > single
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > contributor
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should not block ticket progress
> forever.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please let me know if you think the idea
> > >> makes
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > sense.
> > >> > > > > If
> > >> > > > > > > we
> > >> > > > > > > > > > agree
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > on
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it,
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > let's start defining action items for
> the
> > >> > checklist.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > My
> > >> > > > > > 2
> > >> > > > > > > > > cents:
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) All unit tests pass on TC without new
> > >> > failures
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) If ticket targets specific component,
> > it
> > >> > should
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > be
> > >> > > > > > > > reviewed
> > >> > > > > > > > > > by
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > component's maintainer*
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) If ticket changes public API or
> > existing
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > behavior,
> > >> > > > > at
> > >> > > > > > > > least
> > >> > > > > > > > > > two
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commiters should approve the changes **
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts?
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vladimir.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * TBD: Review component list and define
> > >> > maintainers;
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > define
> > >> > > > > > > > > what
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > do if
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > maintainer is unavailable
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ** TBD: Define what is "public API"
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > --
> > >> > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > >> > > > > > > > > >   Andrey Kuznetsov.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > --
> > >> > > > Best regards,
> > >> > > >   Andrey Kuznetsov.
> > >> > > >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Ticket review checklist

[Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>]

Is this list on the Wiki?

On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 7:26 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>
wrote:

> Igniters,
>
> This is the checklist I have at the moment. Please let me know if you have
> any comments on existing items, or want to add or remove anything. It looks
> like we may have not only strict rules, but *nice to have* points here as
> well with help of *MUST*, *SHOULD* and *MAY* words as per RFC2119 [1]. So
> please feel free to suggest optional items as well.
>
> 1) API
> 1.1) API compatibility *MUST* be maintained between minor releases. Do not
> remove existing methods or change their signatures, deprecate them instead
> 1.2) Default behaviour "SHOULD NOT* be changed between minor releases,
> unless absolutely needed. If change is made, it *MUST* be described in
> "Migration Guide"
> 1.3) New operation *MUST* be well-documented in code (javadoc, dotnetdoc):
> documentation must contain method's purpose, description of parameters and
> how their values affect the outcome, description of return value and it's
> default, behavior in negative cases, interaction with other operations and
> components
> 1.4) API parity between Java and .NET platforms *SHOULD* be maintained when
> operation makes sense on both platforms. If method cannot be implemented in
> a platform immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be created and linked to
> current ticket
> 1.5) API parity between thin clients (Java, .NET) *SHOULD* be maintained
> when operation makes sense on several clients. If method cannot be
> implemented in a client immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be created and
> linked to current ticket
> 1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user *MUST* have explanation how to
> resolve, workaround or debug an error
>
> 2) Compatibility
> 2.1) Persistence backward compatibility *MUST* be maintained between minor
> releases. It should be possible to start newer version on data files
> created by the previous version
> 2.2) Thin client forward and backward compatibility *SHOULD* be maintained
> between two consecutive minor releases. If compatibility cannot be
> maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
> 2.3) JDBC and ODBC forward and backward compatibility *SHOULD* be
> maintained between two consecutive minor releases. If compatibility cannot
> be maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
>
> 3) Tests
> 3.1) New functionality *MUST* be covered with unit tests for both positive
> and negative use cases
> 3.2) All test suites *MUST* be run before merge to master..There *MUST* be
> no new test failures
>
> 4) Code style *MUST* be followed as per Ignite's Coding Guidelines
>
> Vladimir.
>
> [1] https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
>
> On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Dmitry,
> >
> > Yes, I'll do that in the nearest days.
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <dp...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Igniters, the idea was related to small refactorings co-located with
> main
> >> change.
> >>
> >> Main change itself indicates that existing code did not meet the
> criteria
> >> of practice. Approving of standalone refactorings instead contradicts
> with
> >> principle don't touch if it works. So I still like idea of co-located
> >> changes improving code, javadocs, style, etc.
> >>
> >> But let's not argue about this point now, let's summarize the undisputed
> >> points and add it to the wiki. Vladimir, would you please do it?
> >>
> >>
> >> ср, 25 апр. 2018 г. в 16:42, Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>:
> >>
> >> > Igniters,
> >> >
> >> > I agree with Vova.
> >> >
> >> > Don't fix if it works!
> >> >
> >> > If you 100% sure then it a useful addition to the product - just make
> a
> >> > separate ticket.
> >> >
> >> > В Ср, 25/04/2018 в 11:44 +0300, Vladimir Ozerov пишет:
> >> > > Guys,
> >> > >
> >> > > The problem with in-place refactorings is that you increase affected
> >> > scope.
> >> > > It is not uncommon to break compatibility or public contracts with
> >> even
> >> > > minor things. E.g. recently we decided drop org.jsr166 package in
> >> favor
> >> > of
> >> > > Java 8 classes. Innocent change. Result - broken storage. Another
> >> problem
> >> > > is conflicts. It is not uncommon to have long-lived branches which
> we
> >> > need
> >> > > to merge with master over and over again. And a lot of refactorings
> >> cause
> >> > > conflicts. It is much easier to resolve them if you know that logic
> >> was
> >> > not
> >> > > affected as opposed to cases when you need to resolve both renames
> and
> >> > > method extractions along with business-logic changes.
> >> > >
> >> > > I'd like to repeat - if you have a time for refactoring then you
> >> > definitely
> >> > > have a time to extract these changes to separate PR and submit a
> >> separate
> >> > > ticket. I am quite understand what "low priority" do you mean if you
> >> do
> >> > > refactorings on your own.
> >> > >
> >> > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 10:52 PM, Andrey Kuznetsov <
> stkuzma@gmail.com
> >> >
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > +1.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Once again, I beg for "small refactoring permission" in a
> checklist.
> >> > As of
> >> > > > today, separate tickets for small refactorings has lowest
> priority,
> >> > since
> >> > > > they neither fix any flaw nor add new functionality. Also, the
> >> > attempts to
> >> > > > make issue-related code safer / cleaner / more readable in "real"
> >> pull
> >> > > > requests are typically rejected, since they contradict our current
> >> > > > guidelines.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I understand this will require a bit more effort from
> >> > committer/maintainer,
> >> > > > but otherwise we will get constantly degrading code quality.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > 2018-04-24 18:52 GMT+03:00 Eduard Shangareev <
> >> > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com
> >> > > > > :
> >> > > > > Vladimir,
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > I am not talking about massive/sophisticated refactoring. But I
> >> > believe
> >> > > > > that ask to extract some methods should be OK to do without an
> >> extra
> >> > > > > ticket.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > A checklist shouldn't be necessarily a set of certain rules but
> >> also
> >> > it
> >> > > > > could include suggestion and reminders.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 6:39 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> >> > vozerov@gridgain.com>
> >> > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > Ed,
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Refactoring is a separate task. If you would like to rework
> >> > exchange
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > future
> >> > > > > > - please do this in a ticket "Refactor exchange task", nobody
> >> would
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > against
> >> > > > > > this. This is just a matter of creating separate ticket and
> >> > separate
> >> > > >
> >> > > > PR.
> >> > > > > If
> >> > > > > > one have a time for refactoring, it should not be a problem
> for
> >> > him to
> >> > > > > > spend several minutes on JIRA and GitHub.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > As far as documentation - what you describe is normal review
> >> > process,
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > when
> >> > > > > > reviewer might want to ask contributor to fix something.
> >> Checklist
> >> > is a
> >> > > > > > different thing - this is a set of rules which must be
> followed
> >> by
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > anyone.
> >> > > > > > I do not understand how you can define documentation in this
> >> > checklist.
> >> > > > > > Same problem with logging - what is "enough"?
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Eduard Shangareev <
> >> > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Igniters,
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > I don't understand why you are so against refactoring.
> >> > > > > > > Code already smells like hell. Methods 200+ line is normal.
> >> > Exchange
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > future
> >> > > > > > > is asking to be separated on several one. Transaction code
> >> could
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > understand
> >> > > > > > > few people.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > If we separate refactoring from development it would mean
> that
> >> > no one
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > will
> >> > > > > > > do it.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > 2) Documentation.
> >> > > > > > > Everything which was asked by reviewers to clarify idea
> >> should be
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > reflected
> >> > > > > > > in the code.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > 3) Logging.
> >> > > > > > > Logging should be enough to troubleshoot the problem if
> >> someone
> >> > comes
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > user-list with an issue in the code.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 7:06 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <
> >> > > >
> >> > > > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> >> > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > +1 to idea of checklist.
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > +1 to refactoring and documenting code related to ticket
> in
> >> > +/-20
> >> > > >
> >> > > > LOC
> >> > > > > > at
> >> > > > > > > > least.
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > If we start to do it as part of our regular contribution,
> >> code
> >> > will
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > be
> >> > > > > > > > better, it would became common practice and part of Apache
> >> > Ignite
> >> > > > > > > > development culure.
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > If we will hope we will have free time to submit separate
> >> patch
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > someday
> >> > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > have patience to complete patch-submission process, code
> >> will
> >> > > >
> >> > > > remain
> >> > > > > > > > undocumented and poor-readable.
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > Sincerely,
> >> > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > пт, 20 апр. 2018 г. в 18:56, Александр Меньшиков <
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > sharplermc@gmail.com
> >> > > > > > > :
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > 4) Metrics.
> >> > > > > > > > > partially +1
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > It makes sense to have some minimal code coverage for
> new
> >> > code in
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > PR.
> >> > > > > > > > IMHO.
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > Also, we can limit the cyclomatic complexity of the new
> >> code
> >> > in
> >> > > >
> >> > > > PR
> >> > > > > > too.
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > 6) Refactoring
> >> > > > > > > > > -1
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > I understand why people want to refactor old code.
> >> > > > > > > > > But I think refactoring should be always a separate
> task.
> >> > > > > > > > > And it's better to remove all refactoring from PR, if
> it's
> >> > not
> >> > > >
> >> > > > the
> >> > > > > > > sense
> >> > > > > > > > of
> >> > > > > > > > > the issue.
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 16:54 GMT+03:00 Andrey Kuznetsov <
> >> > stkuzma@gmail.com>:
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > What about adding the following item to the checklist:
> >> > when the
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > change
> >> > > > > > > > > adds
> >> > > > > > > > > > new functionality, then unit tests should also be
> >> > provided, if
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > it's
> >> > > > > > > > > > technically possible?
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > As for refactorings, in fact they are strongly
> >> discouraged
> >> > > >
> >> > > > today
> >> > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > > > some
> >> > > > > > > > > > unclear reason. Let's permit to make refactorings in
> the
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > checklist
> >> > > > > > > > being
> >> > > > > > > > > > discussed. (Of cource, refactoring should relate to
> >> problem
> >> > > >
> >> > > > being
> >> > > > > > > > > solved.)
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 16:16 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <
> >> > > >
> >> > > > vozerov@gridgain.com
> >> > > > > > :
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ed,
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately some of these points are not good
> >> > candidates
> >> > > >
> >> > > > for
> >> > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > checklist because of these:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > - It must be clear and disallow *multiple
> >> > interpretations*
> >> > > > > > > > > > > - It must be *lightweight*, otherwise Ignite
> >> development
> >> > > >
> >> > > > would
> >> > > > > > > > become a
> >> > > > > > > > > > > nightmare
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > We cannot have "nice to have" points here. Checklist
> >> > should
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > answer
> >> > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > question "is ticket eligible to be merged?"
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Code style.
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > +1
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  2) Documentation
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > -1, it is impossible to define what is
> >> > "well-documented". A
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > piece
> >> > > > > > > of
> >> > > > > > > > > code
> >> > > > > > > > > > > could be obvious for one contributor, and
> non-obvious
> >> for
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > another.
> >> > > > > > > In
> >> > > > > > > > > any
> >> > > > > > > > > > > case this is not a blocker for merge. Instead,
> during
> >> > review
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > one
> >> > > > > > > can
> >> > > > > > > > > ask
> >> > > > > > > > > > > implementer to add more docs, but it cannot be
> forced.
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  3) Logging
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > -1, same problem - what is "enough logging?". Enough
> >> for
> >> > > >
> >> > > > whom?
> >> > > > > > How
> >> > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > > > understand whether it is enough or not?
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  4) Metrics
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > -1, no clear boundaries, and decision on whether
> >> metrics
> >> > are
> >> > > >
> >> > > > to
> >> > > > > > be
> >> > > > > > > > > added
> >> > > > > > > > > > or
> >> > > > > > > > > > > not should be performed during design phase. As
> >> before,
> >> > it is
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > perfectly
> >> > > > > > > > > > > valid to ask contributor to add metrics with clear
> >> > > >
> >> > > > explanation
> >> > > > > > why,
> >> > > > > > > > but
> >> > > > > > > > > > > this is not part of the checklist.
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5) TC status
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > +1, already mentioned
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  6) Refactoring
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > Strong -1. OOP is a slippery slope, there are no
> good
> >> > and bad
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > receipts
> >> > > > > > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > > > > > > all cases, hence it cannot be used in a checklist.
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > We can borrow useful rules from p.2, p.3 and p.4 if
> >> you
> >> > > >
> >> > > > provide
> >> > > > > > > clear
> >> > > > > > > > > > > definitions on how to measure them.
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > Vladimir.
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Eduard Shangareev <
> >> > > > > > > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Also, I want to add some technical requirement.
> >> Let's
> >> > > >
> >> > > > discuss
> >> > > > > > > them.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Code style.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > The code needs to be formatted according to coding
> >> > > >
> >> > > > guidelines
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Coding+Guidelines
> >> > > > > > > > > > > .
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > The
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > code must not contain TODOs without a ticket
> >> reference.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > It is highly recommended to make major formatting
> >> > changes
> >> > > >
> >> > > > in
> >> > > > > > > > existing
> >> > > > > > > > > > > code
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > as a separate commit, to make review process more
> >> > > >
> >> > > > practical.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Documentation.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Added code should be well-documented. Any methods
> >> that
> >> > > >
> >> > > > raise
> >> > > > > > > > > questions
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > regarding their code flow, invariants,
> >> synchronization,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > etc.,
> >> > > > > > > must
> >> > > > > > > > be
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > documented with comprehensive javadoc. Any
> reviewer
> >> can
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > request
> >> > > > > > > > that
> >> > > > > > > > > a
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > particular added method be documented. Also, it
> is a
> >> > good
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > practice
> >> > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > document old code in a 10-20 lines region around
> >> > changed
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > code.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > 3) Logging.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Make sure that there are enough logging added in
> >> every
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > category
> >> > > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > possible diagnostic in field. Check that logging
> >> > messages
> >> > > >
> >> > > > are
> >> > > > > > > > > properly
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > spelled.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > 4) Metrics.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Are there any metrics that need to be exposed to
> >> user?
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > 5) TC status.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Recheck that there are no new failing tests
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > 6) Refactoring.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > The code should be better than before:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - extract method from big one;
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - do anything else to make code clearer (don't
> >> > forget
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > about
> >> > > > > > > some
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >    OOP-practise, replace if-else hell with
> >> inheritance
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - split refactoring (renaming, code format)
> from
> >> > actual
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > changes
> >> > > > > > > > by
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >    separate commit
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:23 PM, Eduard
> Shangareev <
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, guys.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that we should update maintainers list
> >> > before
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > adding
> >> > > > > > > > this
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > review
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > requirement.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > There should not be the situation when there is
> >> only
> >> > one
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > contributor
> >> > > > > > > > > > > who
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > is responsible for a component.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > We already have issues with review speed and
> >> response
> >> > > >
> >> > > > time.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 2:17 PM, Anton
> Vinogradov
> >> <
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > av@apache.org
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vova,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Everything you described sound good to me.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to propose to create special page at
> AI
> >> > Wiki
> >> > > >
> >> > > > and
> >> > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > > describe
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > checklist.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case we'll find something should be
> >> > changed/improved
> >> > > >
> >> > > > it
> >> > > > > > > will
> >> > > > > > > > be
> >> > > > > > > > > > > easy
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > update the page.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 0:53 GMT+03:00 Nikolay Izhikov <
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > nizhikov@apache.org
> >> > > > > > > > > :
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Vladimir.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for seting up this discussion.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As we discussed, I think an important part
> of
> >> > this
> >> > > >
> >> > > > check
> >> > > > > > > list
> >> > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > compatibility rules.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * What should be backward compatible?
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * How should we maintain it?
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) If ticket changes public API or
> existing
> >> > > >
> >> > > > behavior,
> >> > > > > at
> >> > > > > > > > least
> >> > > > > > > > > > two
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commiters should approve the changes
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can learn from other open source project
> >> > > >
> >> > > > experience.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Apache Kafka [1], for example, requires
> >> KIP(kafka
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > improvement
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > proposal)
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for *every* major change.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Major change definition includes public API.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/
> >> > > >
> >> > > > confluence/display/KAFKA/
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kafka+Improvement+Proposals
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > В Чт, 19/04/2018 в 23:00 +0300, Vladimir
> >> Ozerov
> >> > пишет:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's glad to see our community becomes
> >> larger
> >> > every
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > day.
> >> > > > > > > But
> >> > > > > > > > > as
> >> > > > > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > grows
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes more and more difficult to manage
> >> > review and
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > merge
> >> > > > > > > > > > > processes
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > keep quality of our decisions at the
> proper
> >> > level.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > More
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > contributors,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commits, more components interlinked with
> >> each
> >> > other
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > in
> >> > > > > > > > subtle
> >> > > > > > > > > > > ways.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to propose to setup a formal
> >> > review
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > checklist.
> >> > > > > > > > > This
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > would
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be a
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > set of actions every reviewer needs to
> check
> >> > before
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > approving
> >> > > > > > > > > > > merge
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of a
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > certain feature. Passing the checklist
> >> would be
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > *necessary
> >> > > > > > > > but
> >> > > > > > > > > > not
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sufficient* phase before commit could be
> >> added
> >> > to
> >> > > >
> >> > > > the
> >> > > > > > main
> >> > > > > > > > > > branch.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > The
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > checklist would help us to detect a lot of
> >> > common
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > problems
> >> > > > > > > > > such
> >> > > > > > > > > > a
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > broken
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests or bad UX earlier, and would help
> >> > contributors
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > lead
> >> > > > > > > > > their
> >> > > > > > > > > > > pull
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > requests to merge.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hallmarks of a good checklist:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - It must be followed be everyone without
> >> > exceptions
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - It must be clear and disallow multiple
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > interpretations
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - It must be lightweight, otherwise Ignite
> >> > > >
> >> > > > development
> >> > > > > > > would
> >> > > > > > > > > > > become
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > a
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nightmare
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - It must be non-blocking, i.e.
> >> inacessibility
> >> > of a
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > single
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > contributor
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should not block ticket progress forever.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please let me know if you think the idea
> >> makes
> >> > > >
> >> > > > sense.
> >> > > > > If
> >> > > > > > > we
> >> > > > > > > > > > agree
> >> > > > > > > > > > > on
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > let's start defining action items for the
> >> > checklist.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > My
> >> > > > > > 2
> >> > > > > > > > > cents:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) All unit tests pass on TC without new
> >> > failures
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) If ticket targets specific component,
> it
> >> > should
> >> > > >
> >> > > > be
> >> > > > > > > > reviewed
> >> > > > > > > > > > by
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > component's maintainer*
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) If ticket changes public API or
> existing
> >> > > >
> >> > > > behavior,
> >> > > > > at
> >> > > > > > > > least
> >> > > > > > > > > > two
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commiters should approve the changes **
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts?
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vladimir.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * TBD: Review component list and define
> >> > maintainers;
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > define
> >> > > > > > > > > what
> >> > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > do if
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > maintainer is unavailable
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ** TBD: Define what is "public API"
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > --
> >> > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> >> > > > > > > > > >   Andrey Kuznetsov.
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > --
> >> > > > Best regards,
> >> > > >   Andrey Kuznetsov.
> >> > > >
> >>
> >
> >
>

Re: Ticket review checklist

[Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>]

Igniters,

This is the checklist I have at the moment. Please let me know if you have
any comments on existing items, or want to add or remove anything. It looks
like we may have not only strict rules, but *nice to have* points here as
well with help of *MUST*, *SHOULD* and *MAY* words as per RFC2119 [1]. So
please feel free to suggest optional items as well.

1) API
1.1) API compatibility *MUST* be maintained between minor releases. Do not
remove existing methods or change their signatures, deprecate them instead
1.2) Default behaviour "SHOULD NOT* be changed between minor releases,
unless absolutely needed. If change is made, it *MUST* be described in
"Migration Guide"
1.3) New operation *MUST* be well-documented in code (javadoc, dotnetdoc):
documentation must contain method's purpose, description of parameters and
how their values affect the outcome, description of return value and it's
default, behavior in negative cases, interaction with other operations and
components
1.4) API parity between Java and .NET platforms *SHOULD* be maintained when
operation makes sense on both platforms. If method cannot be implemented in
a platform immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be created and linked to
current ticket
1.5) API parity between thin clients (Java, .NET) *SHOULD* be maintained
when operation makes sense on several clients. If method cannot be
implemented in a client immediately, new JIRA ticket *MUST* be created and
linked to current ticket
1.6) All exceptions thrown to a user *MUST* have explanation how to
resolve, workaround or debug an error

2) Compatibility
2.1) Persistence backward compatibility *MUST* be maintained between minor
releases. It should be possible to start newer version on data files
created by the previous version
2.2) Thin client forward and backward compatibility *SHOULD* be maintained
between two consecutive minor releases. If compatibility cannot be
maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"
2.3) JDBC and ODBC forward and backward compatibility *SHOULD* be
maintained between two consecutive minor releases. If compatibility cannot
be maintained it *MUST* be described in "Migration Guide"

3) Tests
3.1) New functionality *MUST* be covered with unit tests for both positive
and negative use cases
3.2) All test suites *MUST* be run before merge to master..There *MUST* be
no new test failures

4) Code style *MUST* be followed as per Ignite's Coding Guidelines

Vladimir.

[1] https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt

On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>
wrote:

> Hi Dmitry,
>
> Yes, I'll do that in the nearest days.
>
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <dp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Igniters, the idea was related to small refactorings co-located with main
>> change.
>>
>> Main change itself indicates that existing code did not meet the criteria
>> of practice. Approving of standalone refactorings instead contradicts with
>> principle don't touch if it works. So I still like idea of co-located
>> changes improving code, javadocs, style, etc.
>>
>> But let's not argue about this point now, let's summarize the undisputed
>> points and add it to the wiki. Vladimir, would you please do it?
>>
>>
>> ср, 25 апр. 2018 г. в 16:42, Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>:
>>
>> > Igniters,
>> >
>> > I agree with Vova.
>> >
>> > Don't fix if it works!
>> >
>> > If you 100% sure then it a useful addition to the product - just make a
>> > separate ticket.
>> >
>> > В Ср, 25/04/2018 в 11:44 +0300, Vladimir Ozerov пишет:
>> > > Guys,
>> > >
>> > > The problem with in-place refactorings is that you increase affected
>> > scope.
>> > > It is not uncommon to break compatibility or public contracts with
>> even
>> > > minor things. E.g. recently we decided drop org.jsr166 package in
>> favor
>> > of
>> > > Java 8 classes. Innocent change. Result - broken storage. Another
>> problem
>> > > is conflicts. It is not uncommon to have long-lived branches which we
>> > need
>> > > to merge with master over and over again. And a lot of refactorings
>> cause
>> > > conflicts. It is much easier to resolve them if you know that logic
>> was
>> > not
>> > > affected as opposed to cases when you need to resolve both renames and
>> > > method extractions along with business-logic changes.
>> > >
>> > > I'd like to repeat - if you have a time for refactoring then you
>> > definitely
>> > > have a time to extract these changes to separate PR and submit a
>> separate
>> > > ticket. I am quite understand what "low priority" do you mean if you
>> do
>> > > refactorings on your own.
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 10:52 PM, Andrey Kuznetsov <stkuzma@gmail.com
>> >
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > +1.
>> > > >
>> > > > Once again, I beg for "small refactoring permission" in a checklist.
>> > As of
>> > > > today, separate tickets for small refactorings has lowest priority,
>> > since
>> > > > they neither fix any flaw nor add new functionality. Also, the
>> > attempts to
>> > > > make issue-related code safer / cleaner / more readable in "real"
>> pull
>> > > > requests are typically rejected, since they contradict our current
>> > > > guidelines.
>> > > >
>> > > > I understand this will require a bit more effort from
>> > committer/maintainer,
>> > > > but otherwise we will get constantly degrading code quality.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > 2018-04-24 18:52 GMT+03:00 Eduard Shangareev <
>> > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com
>> > > > > :
>> > > > > Vladimir,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I am not talking about massive/sophisticated refactoring. But I
>> > believe
>> > > > > that ask to extract some methods should be OK to do without an
>> extra
>> > > > > ticket.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > A checklist shouldn't be necessarily a set of certain rules but
>> also
>> > it
>> > > > > could include suggestion and reminders.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 6:39 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
>> > vozerov@gridgain.com>
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > Ed,
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Refactoring is a separate task. If you would like to rework
>> > exchange
>> > > > >
>> > > > > future
>> > > > > > - please do this in a ticket "Refactor exchange task", nobody
>> would
>> > > > >
>> > > > > against
>> > > > > > this. This is just a matter of creating separate ticket and
>> > separate
>> > > >
>> > > > PR.
>> > > > > If
>> > > > > > one have a time for refactoring, it should not be a problem for
>> > him to
>> > > > > > spend several minutes on JIRA and GitHub.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > As far as documentation - what you describe is normal review
>> > process,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > when
>> > > > > > reviewer might want to ask contributor to fix something.
>> Checklist
>> > is a
>> > > > > > different thing - this is a set of rules which must be followed
>> by
>> > > > >
>> > > > > anyone.
>> > > > > > I do not understand how you can define documentation in this
>> > checklist.
>> > > > > > Same problem with logging - what is "enough"?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Eduard Shangareev <
>> > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Igniters,
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > I don't understand why you are so against refactoring.
>> > > > > > > Code already smells like hell. Methods 200+ line is normal.
>> > Exchange
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > future
>> > > > > > > is asking to be separated on several one. Transaction code
>> could
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > understand
>> > > > > > > few people.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > If we separate refactoring from development it would mean that
>> > no one
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > will
>> > > > > > > do it.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > 2) Documentation.
>> > > > > > > Everything which was asked by reviewers to clarify idea
>> should be
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > reflected
>> > > > > > > in the code.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > 3) Logging.
>> > > > > > > Logging should be enough to troubleshoot the problem if
>> someone
>> > comes
>> > > > >
>> > > > > to
>> > > > > > > user-list with an issue in the code.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 7:06 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <
>> > > >
>> > > > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > +1 to idea of checklist.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > +1 to refactoring and documenting code related to ticket in
>> > +/-20
>> > > >
>> > > > LOC
>> > > > > > at
>> > > > > > > > least.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > If we start to do it as part of our regular contribution,
>> code
>> > will
>> > > > >
>> > > > > be
>> > > > > > > > better, it would became common practice and part of Apache
>> > Ignite
>> > > > > > > > development culure.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > If we will hope we will have free time to submit separate
>> patch
>> > > > >
>> > > > > someday
>> > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > have patience to complete patch-submission process, code
>> will
>> > > >
>> > > > remain
>> > > > > > > > undocumented and poor-readable.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Sincerely,
>> > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > пт, 20 апр. 2018 г. в 18:56, Александр Меньшиков <
>> > > > >
>> > > > > sharplermc@gmail.com
>> > > > > > > :
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > 4) Metrics.
>> > > > > > > > > partially +1
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > It makes sense to have some minimal code coverage for new
>> > code in
>> > > > >
>> > > > > PR.
>> > > > > > > > IMHO.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > Also, we can limit the cyclomatic complexity of the new
>> code
>> > in
>> > > >
>> > > > PR
>> > > > > > too.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > 6) Refactoring
>> > > > > > > > > -1
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > I understand why people want to refactor old code.
>> > > > > > > > > But I think refactoring should be always a separate task.
>> > > > > > > > > And it's better to remove all refactoring from PR, if it's
>> > not
>> > > >
>> > > > the
>> > > > > > > sense
>> > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > > the issue.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 16:54 GMT+03:00 Andrey Kuznetsov <
>> > stkuzma@gmail.com>:
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > What about adding the following item to the checklist:
>> > when the
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > change
>> > > > > > > > > adds
>> > > > > > > > > > new functionality, then unit tests should also be
>> > provided, if
>> > > > >
>> > > > > it's
>> > > > > > > > > > technically possible?
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > As for refactorings, in fact they are strongly
>> discouraged
>> > > >
>> > > > today
>> > > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > some
>> > > > > > > > > > unclear reason. Let's permit to make refactorings in the
>> > > > >
>> > > > > checklist
>> > > > > > > > being
>> > > > > > > > > > discussed. (Of cource, refactoring should relate to
>> problem
>> > > >
>> > > > being
>> > > > > > > > > solved.)
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 16:16 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <
>> > > >
>> > > > vozerov@gridgain.com
>> > > > > > :
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ed,
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately some of these points are not good
>> > candidates
>> > > >
>> > > > for
>> > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > checklist because of these:
>> > > > > > > > > > > - It must be clear and disallow *multiple
>> > interpretations*
>> > > > > > > > > > > - It must be *lightweight*, otherwise Ignite
>> development
>> > > >
>> > > > would
>> > > > > > > > become a
>> > > > > > > > > > > nightmare
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > We cannot have "nice to have" points here. Checklist
>> > should
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > answer
>> > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > question "is ticket eligible to be merged?"
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Code style.
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > +1
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  2) Documentation
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > -1, it is impossible to define what is
>> > "well-documented". A
>> > > > >
>> > > > > piece
>> > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > > code
>> > > > > > > > > > > could be obvious for one contributor, and non-obvious
>> for
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > another.
>> > > > > > > In
>> > > > > > > > > any
>> > > > > > > > > > > case this is not a blocker for merge. Instead, during
>> > review
>> > > > >
>> > > > > one
>> > > > > > > can
>> > > > > > > > > ask
>> > > > > > > > > > > implementer to add more docs, but it cannot be forced.
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  3) Logging
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > -1, same problem - what is "enough logging?". Enough
>> for
>> > > >
>> > > > whom?
>> > > > > > How
>> > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > understand whether it is enough or not?
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  4) Metrics
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > -1, no clear boundaries, and decision on whether
>> metrics
>> > are
>> > > >
>> > > > to
>> > > > > > be
>> > > > > > > > > added
>> > > > > > > > > > or
>> > > > > > > > > > > not should be performed during design phase. As
>> before,
>> > it is
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > perfectly
>> > > > > > > > > > > valid to ask contributor to add metrics with clear
>> > > >
>> > > > explanation
>> > > > > > why,
>> > > > > > > > but
>> > > > > > > > > > > this is not part of the checklist.
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5) TC status
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > +1, already mentioned
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >  6) Refactoring
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > Strong -1. OOP is a slippery slope, there are no good
>> > and bad
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > receipts
>> > > > > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > > > > all cases, hence it cannot be used in a checklist.
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > We can borrow useful rules from p.2, p.3 and p.4 if
>> you
>> > > >
>> > > > provide
>> > > > > > > clear
>> > > > > > > > > > > definitions on how to measure them.
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > Vladimir.
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Eduard Shangareev <
>> > > > > > > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Also, I want to add some technical requirement.
>> Let's
>> > > >
>> > > > discuss
>> > > > > > > them.
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Code style.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > The code needs to be formatted according to coding
>> > > >
>> > > > guidelines
>> > > > > > > > > > > > <
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Coding+Guidelines
>> > > > > > > > > > > .
>> > > > > > > > > > > > The
>> > > > > > > > > > > > code must not contain TODOs without a ticket
>> reference.
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > It is highly recommended to make major formatting
>> > changes
>> > > >
>> > > > in
>> > > > > > > > existing
>> > > > > > > > > > > code
>> > > > > > > > > > > > as a separate commit, to make review process more
>> > > >
>> > > > practical.
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Documentation.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Added code should be well-documented. Any methods
>> that
>> > > >
>> > > > raise
>> > > > > > > > > questions
>> > > > > > > > > > > > regarding their code flow, invariants,
>> synchronization,
>> > > >
>> > > > etc.,
>> > > > > > > must
>> > > > > > > > be
>> > > > > > > > > > > > documented with comprehensive javadoc. Any reviewer
>> can
>> > > > >
>> > > > > request
>> > > > > > > > that
>> > > > > > > > > a
>> > > > > > > > > > > > particular added method be documented. Also, it is a
>> > good
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > practice
>> > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > document old code in a 10-20 lines region around
>> > changed
>> > > > >
>> > > > > code.
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > 3) Logging.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Make sure that there are enough logging added in
>> every
>> > > > >
>> > > > > category
>> > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > > > > > possible diagnostic in field. Check that logging
>> > messages
>> > > >
>> > > > are
>> > > > > > > > > properly
>> > > > > > > > > > > > spelled.
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > 4) Metrics.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Are there any metrics that need to be exposed to
>> user?
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > 5) TC status.
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Recheck that there are no new failing tests
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > 6) Refactoring.
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > The code should be better than before:
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > >    - extract method from big one;
>> > > > > > > > > > > >    - do anything else to make code clearer (don't
>> > forget
>> > > > >
>> > > > > about
>> > > > > > > some
>> > > > > > > > > > > >    OOP-practise, replace if-else hell with
>> inheritance
>> > > > > > > > > > > >    - split refactoring (renaming, code format) from
>> > actual
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > changes
>> > > > > > > > by
>> > > > > > > > > > > >    separate commit
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:23 PM, Eduard Shangareev <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, guys.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that we should update maintainers list
>> > before
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > adding
>> > > > > > > > this
>> > > > > > > > > > > > review
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > requirement.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > There should not be the situation when there is
>> only
>> > one
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > contributor
>> > > > > > > > > > > who
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > is responsible for a component.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > We already have issues with review speed and
>> response
>> > > >
>> > > > time.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 2:17 PM, Anton Vinogradov
>> <
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > av@apache.org
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vova,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Everything you described sound good to me.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to propose to create special page at AI
>> > Wiki
>> > > >
>> > > > and
>> > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > describe
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > checklist.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case we'll find something should be
>> > changed/improved
>> > > >
>> > > > it
>> > > > > > > will
>> > > > > > > > be
>> > > > > > > > > > > easy
>> > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > update the page.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2018-04-20 0:53 GMT+03:00 Nikolay Izhikov <
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > nizhikov@apache.org
>> > > > > > > > > :
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Vladimir.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for seting up this discussion.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As we discussed, I think an important part of
>> > this
>> > > >
>> > > > check
>> > > > > > > list
>> > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > compatibility rules.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * What should be backward compatible?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * How should we maintain it?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) If ticket changes public API or existing
>> > > >
>> > > > behavior,
>> > > > > at
>> > > > > > > > least
>> > > > > > > > > > two
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commiters should approve the changes
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can learn from other open source project
>> > > >
>> > > > experience.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Apache Kafka [1], for example, requires
>> KIP(kafka
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > improvement
>> > > > > > > > > > > > proposal)
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for *every* major change.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Major change definition includes public API.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/
>> > > >
>> > > > confluence/display/KAFKA/
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kafka+Improvement+Proposals
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > В Чт, 19/04/2018 в 23:00 +0300, Vladimir
>> Ozerov
>> > пишет:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's glad to see our community becomes
>> larger
>> > every
>> > > > >
>> > > > > day.
>> > > > > > > But
>> > > > > > > > > as
>> > > > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > grows
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes more and more difficult to manage
>> > review and
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > merge
>> > > > > > > > > > > processes
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > keep quality of our decisions at the proper
>> > level.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > More
>> > > > > > > > > > > > contributors,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commits, more components interlinked with
>> each
>> > other
>> > > > >
>> > > > > in
>> > > > > > > > subtle
>> > > > > > > > > > > ways.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to propose to setup a formal
>> > review
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > checklist.
>> > > > > > > > > This
>> > > > > > > > > > > > would
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be a
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > set of actions every reviewer needs to check
>> > before
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > approving
>> > > > > > > > > > > merge
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of a
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > certain feature. Passing the checklist
>> would be
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > *necessary
>> > > > > > > > but
>> > > > > > > > > > not
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sufficient* phase before commit could be
>> added
>> > to
>> > > >
>> > > > the
>> > > > > > main
>> > > > > > > > > > branch.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > The
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > checklist would help us to detect a lot of
>> > common
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > problems
>> > > > > > > > > such
>> > > > > > > > > > a
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > broken
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests or bad UX earlier, and would help
>> > contributors
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > lead
>> > > > > > > > > their
>> > > > > > > > > > > pull
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > requests to merge.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hallmarks of a good checklist:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - It must be followed be everyone without
>> > exceptions
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - It must be clear and disallow multiple
>> > > > >
>> > > > > interpretations
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - It must be lightweight, otherwise Ignite
>> > > >
>> > > > development
>> > > > > > > would
>> > > > > > > > > > > become
>> > > > > > > > > > > > a
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nightmare
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - It must be non-blocking, i.e.
>> inacessibility
>> > of a
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > single
>> > > > > > > > > > > > contributor
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should not block ticket progress forever.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please let me know if you think the idea
>> makes
>> > > >
>> > > > sense.
>> > > > > If
>> > > > > > > we
>> > > > > > > > > > agree
>> > > > > > > > > > > on
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > let's start defining action items for the
>> > checklist.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > My
>> > > > > > 2
>> > > > > > > > > cents:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) All unit tests pass on TC without new
>> > failures
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) If ticket targets specific component, it
>> > should
>> > > >
>> > > > be
>> > > > > > > > reviewed
>> > > > > > > > > > by
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > component's maintainer*
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) If ticket changes public API or existing
>> > > >
>> > > > behavior,
>> > > > > at
>> > > > > > > > least
>> > > > > > > > > > two
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commiters should approve the changes **
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vladimir.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * TBD: Review component list and define
>> > maintainers;
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > define
>> > > > > > > > > what
>> > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > do if
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > maintainer is unavailable
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ** TBD: Define what is "public API"
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
>> > > > > > > > > >   Andrey Kuznetsov.
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > Best regards,
>> > > >   Andrey Kuznetsov.
>> > > >
>>
>
>