[jdf-dev] QSTools - Quickstarts tooling automation update to meet remote quickstarts

[Rafael Benevides]

Em 15/07/13 20:54, Sande Gilda escreveu:
>
> On 07/15/2013 06:18 PM, Rafael Benevides wrote:
>> Hi all, Sande and Pete,
>>
>> One significant change in JDF Quickstarts repo is the use of git 
>> submodules to bring remote quickstarts to JDF. But... Sometimes 
>> remote quickstarts doesn't ( and don't want/need to ) follow JDF 
>> Contributing guide ( 
>> https://github.com/jboss-jdf/jboss-as-quickstart/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md 
>> ).
>>
>> There are some requirements from QSTools ( 
>> https://docspace.corp.redhat.com/docs/DOC-132902 ) that I believe 
>> that we should update to split in two categories ( desired and 
>> mandatory ).
>>
>> The definitions bellow are what I see differences across JBoss projects:
>>  - package and groupId name (of course) - We already defined that 
>> using org.jboss.quickstarts.(eap|wfk|...) is optional from other 
>> Quickstarts (not JDF) but should be consistent within the product
> Agreed. Could we define properties or some other type of file that 
> could define the valid packages, groups, etc for each product?

Yes. That's Pete's suggestion. We could keep this definition file on 
QStools github repo. I thought in a yaml format to keep it.

Sande, Can you edit the QSTools requirement docspace to define what 
should be a "per product" Checker ? Nobody other than you is the best to 
provide this definition. I understand that what will not be a "per 
product" Checker, it should be a mandatory instruction.

With this in hand I can start a QSTools refactoring. I was wondering 
that a "per product" violation is a "warning" level violation and I'll 
sign it on QSTools report with a yellow color. In a mandatory violation 
I'll sign it with a red color.

I'm trying to make QSTools a tooling to help us and it should be update 
as we need. But recently, the reported violations seems more a barrier 
than a gate.

Pete,

Any objections ?
>>  - License Headers
> Yes. We saw this with the Spring-based quickstarts that originate 
> elsewhere. I'd still like to see this reported in case they are EAP 
> quickstarts.
>>  - Spacing and Indentation formats
>>
> I don't see this as being something someone would object too. But 
> maybe I'm wrong? Again, I'd still like to see this reported in case 
> they are EAP quickstarts.
>
One example: The Infinispan project is the one who uses a different 
format. They use 3-space for indentation.

>> What do you think? Is it it desired to be more or less restrictive 
>> for other quickstarts and also turn it in an automated pattern?
>>
>> I'm bringing this discussion mainly because it is a recurrent 
>> discussion for remote projects like
>> - Infinispan: 
>> https://github.com/infinispan/jdg-quickstart/pull/20#issuecomment-20968520
>> - GateIn: 
>> http://transcripts.jboss.org/channel/irc.freenode.org/%23jboss-jdf/2013/%23jboss-jdf.2013-06-21.log.html#t2013-06-21T13:39:31
>> - And probable new others like BRMS, Fuse and Switchyard Quickstarts.
- Adding Spring Quickstarts to the list :)
>>
>> -- 
>> Rafael Benevides | Senior Software Engineer
>> Red Hat Brazil
>> +55-61-9269-6576
>>
>> Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration.
>> See how it works at redhat.com
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/jdf-dev/attachments/20130715/1f3e4550/attachment.html