(#111) Advancing research for LORM implementation #184

llorllale · 2018-02-14T19:30:54Z

as per #111

After doing some research it was decided we should go for Latent Semantic Indexing on the methods of the class in order to implement LORM. See this and this.

0crat · 2018-02-14T19:31:18Z

Job #184 is now in scope, role is REV

codecov-io · 2018-02-14T19:40:04Z

Codecov Report

Merging #184 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##             master     #184   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage     74.79%   74.79%           
  Complexity      133      133           
=========================================
  Files            27       27           
  Lines           964      964           
  Branches         67       67           
=========================================
  Hits            721      721           
  Misses          213      213           
  Partials         30       30

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ	Complexity Δ
src/main/java/org/jpeek/App.java	`93.87% <ø> (ø)`	`13 <0> (ø)`	⬇️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 501c18e...a0bbe42. Read the comment docs.

0crat · 2018-02-14T19:44:05Z

This pull request #184 is assigned to @amihaiemil /z, here is why. The budget is 15 minutes, see §4. Please, read §27 and when you decide to accept the changes, inform @yegor256 /z (the architect) right in this ticket. If you decide that this PR should not be accepted ever, also inform the architect.

amihaiemil · 2018-02-15T11:57:00Z

@llorllale Looks ok, thanks. But there is a problem (not your fault). This research should have been done in the context of the ticket #160. Then, that puzzle should have been removed and replaced with the one you added here.

The task you had now was to implement LORM and use it in reporting. And it is stated that this task has impediments -- I'm not sure what to do in this situation? You could just instruct 0crat to wait, but then you would have a blocked task in your agenda for possibly a long time.

Anyway, quite complex, 0crat needs improvements still, to know which task to assign and which not...

amihaiemil · 2018-02-15T11:57:10Z

@rultor goog to merge

rultor · 2018-02-15T11:58:12Z

@rultor goog to merge

@amihaiemil Thanks for your request. @yegor256 Please confirm this.

llorllale · 2018-02-15T13:01:39Z

@amihaiemil

And it is stated that this task has impediments -- I'm not sure what to do in this situation?

See comments starting at this one

amihaiemil · 2018-02-15T13:03:39Z

@llorllale I see, ok :)

amihaiemil · 2018-02-16T16:50:03Z

@yegor256 ping

yegor256 · 2018-02-16T17:19:49Z

@rultor merge

rultor · 2018-02-16T17:20:46Z

@rultor merge

@yegor256 OK, I'll try to merge now. You can check the progress of the merge here

rultor · 2018-02-16T17:26:29Z

@rultor merge

@llorllale @yegor256 Oops, I failed. You can see the full log here (spent 6min)

Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 1, Time elapsed: 0 sec - in org.jpeek.web.ResultsTest
Running org.jpeek.IndexTest
Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 19.511 sec - in org.jpeek.IndexTest
Running org.jpeek.DefaultBaseTest
Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 0.05 sec - in org.jpeek.DefaultBaseTest

Results :

Tests run: 76, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 3

[INFO] 
[INFO] --- jacoco-maven-plugin:0.7.8:check (jacoco-check) @ jpeek ---
[INFO] Loading execution data file /home/r/repo/target/jacoco.exec
[INFO] Analyzed bundle 'jpeek' with 32 classes
[WARNING] Rule violated for bundle jpeek: lines covered ratio is 0.62, but expected minimum is 0.67
[INFO] ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[INFO] BUILD FAILURE
[INFO] ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[INFO] Total time: 03:14 min
[INFO] Finished at: 2018-02-16T17:25:31+00:00
[INFO] Final Memory: 32M/208M
[INFO] ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ERROR] Failed to execute goal org.jacoco:jacoco-maven-plugin:0.7.8:check (jacoco-check) on project jpeek: Coverage checks have not been met. See log for details. -> [Help 1]
org.apache.maven.lifecycle.LifecycleExecutionException: Failed to execute goal org.jacoco:jacoco-maven-plugin:0.7.8:check (jacoco-check) on project jpeek: Coverage checks have not been met. See log for details.
	at org.apache.maven.lifecycle.internal.MojoExecutor.execute(MojoExecutor.java:212)
	at org.apache.maven.lifecycle.internal.MojoExecutor.execute(MojoExecutor.java:153)
	at org.apache.maven.lifecycle.internal.MojoExecutor.execute(MojoExecutor.java:145)
	at org.apache.maven.lifecycle.internal.LifecycleModuleBuilder.buildProject(LifecycleModuleBuilder.java:116)
	at org.apache.maven.lifecycle.internal.LifecycleModuleBuilder.buildProject(LifecycleModuleBuilder.java:80)
	at org.apache.maven.lifecycle.internal.builder.singlethreaded.SingleThreadedBuilder.build(SingleThreadedBuilder.java:51)
	at org.apache.maven.lifecycle.internal.LifecycleStarter.execute(LifecycleStarter.java:128)
	at org.apache.maven.DefaultMaven.doExecute(DefaultMaven.java:307)
	at org.apache.maven.DefaultMaven.doExecute(DefaultMaven.java:193)
	at org.apache.maven.DefaultMaven.execute(DefaultMaven.java:106)
	at org.apache.maven.cli.MavenCli.execute(MavenCli.java:863)
	at org.apache.maven.cli.MavenCli.doMain(MavenCli.java:288)
	at org.apache.maven.cli.MavenCli.main(MavenCli.java:199)
	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:62)
	at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43)
	at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:498)
	at org.codehaus.plexus.classworlds.launcher.Launcher.launchEnhanced(Launcher.java:289)
	at org.codehaus.plexus.classworlds.launcher.Launcher.launch(Launcher.java:229)
	at org.codehaus.plexus.classworlds.launcher.Launcher.mainWithExitCode(Launcher.java:415)
	at org.codehaus.plexus.classworlds.launcher.Launcher.main(Launcher.java:356)
Caused by: org.apache.maven.plugin.MojoExecutionException: Coverage checks have not been met. See log for details.
	at org.jacoco.maven.CheckMojo.executeCheck(CheckMojo.java:186)
	at org.jacoco.maven.CheckMojo.executeMojo(CheckMojo.java:160)
	at org.jacoco.maven.AbstractJacocoMojo.execute(AbstractJacocoMojo.java:63)
	at org.apache.maven.plugin.DefaultBuildPluginManager.executeMojo(DefaultBuildPluginManager.java:134)
	at org.apache.maven.lifecycle.internal.MojoExecutor.execute(MojoExecutor.java:207)
	... 20 more
[ERROR] 
[ERROR] Re-run Maven using the -X switch to enable full debug logging.
[ERROR] 
[ERROR] For more information about the errors and possible solutions, please read the following articles:
[ERROR] [Help 1] http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/MojoExecutionException
container 2945bac9338bda74b3e55d5efa16446cecf7119e2ceff0ea012d50084f9dbd04 is dead
Fri Feb 16 18:26:21 CET 2018

llorllale · 2018-02-17T14:32:00Z

@amihaiemil any advice on how to fix this build error? How can I have changed the coverage when all I modified were an XSL and removed a comment in App.java?

amihaiemil · 2018-02-17T15:27:31Z

@llorllale as the logs say, it fails because jacoco detected a lower test coverage than allowed: Rule violated for bundle jpeek: lines covered ratio is 0.62, but expected minimum is 0.67

Yes, your PR did not alter code coverage. Maybe it was changed in an earlier PR which was merged before this.

I would say: open a ticket about this, instruct 0crat to wait on your task and close this PR in the meantime (but don't delete your branch so you can make another PR after that ticket is solved).

amihaiemil · 2018-02-17T15:27:57Z

@llorllale It also happened here: #179

And it will most likely happen with all the open PRs.

llorllale · 2018-02-17T15:50:18Z

@amihaiemil Closing while waiting on #192

0crat · 2018-02-17T15:50:56Z

@ypshenychka /z please review this job, as in §30

llorllale · 2018-02-17T15:51:35Z

@llorllale

~~0crat must be having a hangover :)~~ my bad, just read the policy for QA

Carry on!

amihaiemil · 2018-02-17T16:54:52Z

@llorllale yes, I guess in the case of PRs, the QA reviews the job done by the CR. I hope I did the right thing here, advised you properly (that's what seemed logical to me).

llorllale · 2018-02-18T14:41:37Z

@amihaiemil FYI just opened #197

0crat · 2018-02-19T19:45:07Z

@amihaiemil /z this job was assigned to you 5 days ago. It will be taken away from you soon, unless you close it, see §8. Read this and this, please.

ypshenychka · 2018-02-19T22:29:18Z

@llorllale According to our QA Rules:

Pull request description explains the solution proposed and contains a link to the original ticket it is related to.

Please provide more details in description.

Messages in a ticket always start with a name of a user they are addressed to.

Please correct your messages by indicating an addressee in the beginning.

ypshenychka · 2018-02-19T22:29:42Z

@amihaiemil According to our QA Rules:

The code reviewer found at least three problems in the code.

No issues were found during code review.
Please confirm that you'll try to find at least three problems while future reviews.

amihaiemil · 2018-02-20T05:46:03Z

@ypshenychka I confirm I'll try to find more issues in future tasks

llorllale · 2018-02-20T11:36:07Z

@ypshenychka fixed description and my messages

ypshenychka · 2018-02-20T11:48:32Z

@llorllale Thank you!

ypshenychka · 2018-02-20T11:48:42Z

@0crat quality acceptable

0crat · 2018-02-20T11:51:44Z

QA review completed: +15 points just awarded to @ypshenychka /z, total is +345

0crat · 2018-02-20T11:52:12Z

Order was finished, quality was "acceptable": +15 points just awarded to @amihaiemil /z, total is +805

0crat · 2018-02-20T11:52:28Z

Payment to ARC for a closed pull request, as in §28: +15 points just awarded to @yegor256 /z, total is +10349

(cqfn#111) Advancing research for LORM implementation

a0bbe42

0crat added the scope label Feb 14, 2018

llorllale mentioned this pull request Feb 17, 2018

Build is broken: failing due to lack of test coverage #192

Closed

llorllale closed this Feb 17, 2018

alilosoft mentioned this pull request Sep 5, 2019

Puzzles (#160) & (#204) are asking the same thing in different words! #332

Open

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

(#111) Advancing research for LORM implementation #184

(#111) Advancing research for LORM implementation #184

llorllale commented Feb 14, 2018 •

edited

Loading

0crat commented Feb 14, 2018

codecov-io commented Feb 14, 2018

0crat commented Feb 14, 2018

amihaiemil commented Feb 15, 2018 •

edited

Loading

amihaiemil commented Feb 15, 2018

rultor commented Feb 15, 2018

llorllale commented Feb 15, 2018

amihaiemil commented Feb 15, 2018

amihaiemil commented Feb 16, 2018

yegor256 commented Feb 16, 2018

rultor commented Feb 16, 2018

rultor commented Feb 16, 2018

llorllale commented Feb 17, 2018

amihaiemil commented Feb 17, 2018

amihaiemil commented Feb 17, 2018 •

edited

Loading

llorllale commented Feb 17, 2018 •

edited

Loading

0crat commented Feb 17, 2018

llorllale commented Feb 17, 2018 •

edited

Loading

amihaiemil commented Feb 17, 2018

llorllale commented Feb 18, 2018 •

edited

Loading

0crat commented Feb 19, 2018

ypshenychka commented Feb 19, 2018

ypshenychka commented Feb 19, 2018

amihaiemil commented Feb 20, 2018

llorllale commented Feb 20, 2018

ypshenychka commented Feb 20, 2018

ypshenychka commented Feb 20, 2018

0crat commented Feb 20, 2018

0crat commented Feb 20, 2018

0crat commented Feb 20, 2018

(#111) Advancing research for LORM implementation #184

(#111) Advancing research for LORM implementation #184

Conversation

llorllale commented Feb 14, 2018 • edited Loading

0crat commented Feb 14, 2018

codecov-io commented Feb 14, 2018

Codecov Report

0crat commented Feb 14, 2018

amihaiemil commented Feb 15, 2018 • edited Loading

amihaiemil commented Feb 15, 2018

rultor commented Feb 15, 2018

llorllale commented Feb 15, 2018

amihaiemil commented Feb 15, 2018

amihaiemil commented Feb 16, 2018

yegor256 commented Feb 16, 2018

rultor commented Feb 16, 2018

rultor commented Feb 16, 2018

llorllale commented Feb 17, 2018

amihaiemil commented Feb 17, 2018

amihaiemil commented Feb 17, 2018 • edited Loading

llorllale commented Feb 17, 2018 • edited Loading

0crat commented Feb 17, 2018

llorllale commented Feb 17, 2018 • edited Loading

amihaiemil commented Feb 17, 2018

llorllale commented Feb 18, 2018 • edited Loading

0crat commented Feb 19, 2018

ypshenychka commented Feb 19, 2018

ypshenychka commented Feb 19, 2018

amihaiemil commented Feb 20, 2018

llorllale commented Feb 20, 2018

ypshenychka commented Feb 20, 2018

ypshenychka commented Feb 20, 2018

0crat commented Feb 20, 2018

0crat commented Feb 20, 2018

0crat commented Feb 20, 2018

llorllale commented Feb 14, 2018 •

edited

Loading

amihaiemil commented Feb 15, 2018 •

edited

Loading

amihaiemil commented Feb 17, 2018 •

edited

Loading

llorllale commented Feb 17, 2018 •

edited

Loading

llorllale commented Feb 17, 2018 •

edited

Loading

llorllale commented Feb 18, 2018 •

edited

Loading