[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [jdt-dev] "clean up" again
|
Vetos, for sure, should be used sparingly and carefully.
Yet, as part of their responsibility, committers need a way to reject changes,
which they assess as having negative impact on the project.
When I wrote "For compiler tests, however, I would veto any such change" I said
so in full confidence that the active committers will agree.
Regarding Object Teams, once more: this is a side issue (other than the fact
that without Object Teams I would never have started contributing to JDT), and
few people on this list have sufficient insights into that project to seriously
discuss its architecture. We could just drop this, but I still believe there is
an aspect that goes far beyond Object Teams:
JDT is used by *many* adopters. Putting aside all design rules and ideology,
it's a fact of life that some of them use internals of JDT, have perhaps been
doing so for a very long time. We are not going to re-write other projects'
history. On the contrary, as a courtesy to our adopters (who are an important
part of the eco system!) we should minimize changes that are likely to cause
grief and pain downstream. By "minimize" I mean: be a bit more conservative than
usual, perform only those changes that are "necessary" in one way or other. Just
raise the bar for approval.
BTW: we have several deleted methods brought back after adopters have explained
their problems with a change in JDT. Some of this looks quite odd and violates a
number of rules, but if it helps adopters it helps the eco system, which is more
important :)
best,
Stephan
On 30.05.20 10:41, Gayan Perera wrote:
I think this was a good discussion. But i think we need to have mix of people
when doing veto. Other wise things will never move forward if we are stuck with
the same group who thinks in the same way.
I know stephan will not agree with me. But i think object teams have great
technical debt from what i read in this thread. A product should no depend on
tests of another product. Moving tests from one junit 3 to junit4 should not
impact heavily. Use test fixtures instead of depending raw test classes. Look at
how IntelliJ platform has done it for plugin developers.
Rather than simply depending on a test plugin and writing your tests on it. Its
always good to have APIs which are not bounded to certain implementation details
on test frameworks.
By the way cleaning up whitespace issues and cleaning up code formatting in a
single commit as a bulk task, I don’t understand the what the big issue that
stephan tries to highlight.
Finally if you depend on non API classes then be prepared to get breaking
changes. It shouldn’t matter how big the product is that depend on non API classes.
Br,
Gayan
On Fri, 29 May 2020 at 18:50, <stephan.herrmann@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:stephan.herrmann@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Thanks for answers here and others.
I feel we can agree that the JUnit3 -> 4 conversion is different from other
mass changes:
* This change is done with close consideration of each individual case
rather than mechanically applying some scheme over unseen amounts of code.
* I see a tangible benefit (during development / for reporting etc.), with
just few comments:
- In JDT I never saw anything nearly as bad as what Alex linked (from
team.cvs)
- Once a new contributor realizes that he has issues with a new test
method not being picked up, this should be the kind of question that should
get a helpful hint from others in very short time. For simple questions like
this feel free to ping even in short intervals.
- This JUnit migration causes significant follow-up work in Object
Teams, but I was happy to get helpful explanations from Carsten and thus I
did not complain about this.
* Test code is just a tiny little bit less critical than main code. This
concerns cleanliness of the git history as well as bugs introduced by mass
changes (= only indirectly affecting users, while still affecting adopters).
I think in JDT/UI this particular activity is still ongoing, and I don't
object to its completion (I have no idea about the percentage completed?). I
hope other committers can agree, too?
For compiler tests, however, I would veto any such change. I'm a bit less
decided about other tests in JDT/Core or JDT/Debug, but I feel terminating
this activity when JDT/UI is done is a fair compromise, OK?
Regarding save actions, I second what Jonah said. Actually I think it was a
bug to enable any save actions that are not in sync with the existing code.
I hope with this we can tick off two items from the list as being not quite
as controversial as some may have felt.
Stephan
Am 2020-05-28 15:52, schrieb Pyves .:
I've contributed a few patches to JDT Core and UI in the past couple of
years, so I'm guessing I fit in the "new contributors" category and may be
able to provide some insight.
My first contribution was fixing bug 424214 and I faced two problems
related to this discussion:
* I struggled to write new unit tests. At the time, I had never used JUnit
3 (which is understandable given that JUnit 4 was released early 2006). I
was probably trying to write a test method with a different naming
convention and it wasn't being picked up by the framework - no longer sure
at this point. And as JUnit 3 was not a thing I had used, I didn't even
realise it was JUnit 3 (in my mind it was some bespoke Eclipse test
utility running) and consequently I couldn't easily look up any
documentation to solve my problems. In the end, I ended up putting the
tests in an existing file and copy-pasted as much possible, not really
understanding how things fitted together. For anyone who has started
writing Java in the past decade or so, these mass migrations to JUnit 4,
even though they touch a lot of files and introduce commit noise, are useful.
* I struggled to get the contribution under 1000 lines to avoid the CQ.
The files I changed had not been cleaned up nor touched in years,
therefore some of the automatic save actions had introduced additional
diffs, for example import ordering. With Till Brichy's help I then had to
revert some of these automatic changes, just for the sake of getting under
the 1000 line limit in time for the M3 deadline. Note that this was my
very first usage of Gerrit, so reverting lines and pushing new patch sets
was not as straightforward for me as it would be now. "Fighting" against
save actions would not have been needed had the files been cleaned up
prior to my contribution.
Admittedly, these are only two small inconveniences which some of you may
even consider as anecdotal, but hopefully they do illustrate cases where
mass cleanups can help newcomers. :)
Best regards,
Pierre-Yves
Le jeu. 28 mai 2020 à 15:08, Aleksandar Kurtakov <akurtako@xxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:akurtako@xxxxxxxxxx>> a écrit :
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 3:07 PM Stephan Herrmann
<stephan.herrmann@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:stephan.herrmann@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
On 28.05.20 13:20, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 1:55 PM S A
<simeon.danailov.andreev@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:simeon.danailov.andreev@xxxxxxxxx>
> <mailto:simeon.danailov.andreev@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:simeon.danailov.andreev@xxxxxxxxx>>> wrote:
> [...]
> I can't make a comment on attracting other contributors in JDT.
>
>
> That I can comment :).
Are you speaking from your own experience of working on JDT code
(as a new
contributor), or are these words you put into the mouths of
others? I'd
appreciate if they speak for themselves.
I speak as the tech lead for Jeff and Roland and discussions on a
weekly basis what/how/when/why to do so we can share the burden in JDT
with others. Being the one that have pushed for people to work on JDT
and the one that has followed up most of the late additions to the
team and specifically organizing the team work so JDT team and
community can grow - yes I do speak from my own experience and would
dare to even say that have a broader view of the project not worse
than many committers.
I haven't worked on JDT code itself a lot (releng fixes after
incomplete fixes in JDT and -Werror addition) but I would dare to say
that non-trivial part of the work in the last few releases has been
requested by/approved by/checked by/etc. by me personally incl.
freeing time for people to work on JDT and further .
I'm willing to learn from our new contributors. It's among the
committers that
we have to find a mode of operation that facilitates collaboration
and avoids
stepping on each others' toes. It seems this mode has not yet been
found.
> P.S. Only whoever hasn't looked at unreadable JUnit3 test
suites results [...]
I'm looking at such results [1] all the time and I see no problem.
Do you care
to be more specific?
https://download.eclipse.org/eclipse/downloads/drops4/R-4.15-202003050155/testresults/html/org.eclipse.team.tests.cvs.core_ep415I-unit-win32-java8_win32.win32.x86_64_8.0.html
- go even figure which test triggered the failing setup. You want see
it in later builds cause these specific tests have been disabled and
other such has been updated to JUnit4 - doing it regularly when my
daily look at test results spots such thing.
Stephan
[1]
https://ci.eclipse.org/jdt/job/eclipse.jdt.core-Gerrit/lastStableBuild/testReport/
_______________________________________________
jdt-dev mailing list
jdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jdt-dev
--
Alexander Kurtakov
Red Hat Eclipse Team
_______________________________________________
jdt-dev mailing list
jdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jdt-dev
_______________________________________________
jdt-dev mailing list
jdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jdt-dev
_______________________________________________
jdt-dev mailing list
jdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jdt-dev
_______________________________________________
jdt-dev mailing list
jdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jdt-dev
