2019-06-26 12:29:42 +03:00
|
|
|
# Java Style Guide
|
|
|
|
Like many style guides, this Java style guide exists for two primary reasons.
|
|
|
|
The first is to provide guidelines that result in a consistent code style across
|
|
|
|
all of the Enso codebases, while the second is to guide people towards a style
|
|
|
|
that is expressive while still easy to read and understand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In general, it aims to create a set of 'zero-thought' rules in order to ease the
|
|
|
|
programmer burden; there is usually only _one way_ to lay out code correctly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<!-- MarkdownTOC levels="2,3" autolink="true" -->
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- [Code Formatting](#code-formatting)
|
|
|
|
- [Naming](#naming)
|
2019-09-27 16:55:58 +03:00
|
|
|
- [Package Structure and Naming](#package-structure-and-naming)
|
|
|
|
- [The Public API](#the-public-api)
|
2019-06-26 12:29:42 +03:00
|
|
|
- [Commenting](#commenting)
|
|
|
|
- [Documentation Comments](#documentation-comments)
|
|
|
|
- [Source Notes](#source-notes)
|
|
|
|
- [TODO Comments](#todo-comments)
|
|
|
|
- [Other Comment Usage](#other-comment-usage)
|
|
|
|
- [Program Design](#program-design)
|
2019-10-02 22:07:29 +03:00
|
|
|
- [Code Complexity](#code-complexity)
|
2019-06-26 12:29:42 +03:00
|
|
|
- [Testing and Benchmarking](#testing-and-benchmarking)
|
|
|
|
- [Warnings, and Lints](#warnings-and-lints)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<!-- /MarkdownTOC -->
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Code Formatting
|
|
|
|
This section explains the rules for visually laying out your code. They provide
|
|
|
|
a robust set of guidelines for creating a consistent visual to the code.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Primary code formatting is done using the [Google Java Format](https://github.com/google/google-java-format)
|
|
|
|
tool, which enforces a clear and consistent style. This is a zero configuration
|
|
|
|
tool, and hence there is no project-level configuration for this tool. It should
|
|
|
|
be used for all new Java projects.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All files must be formatted using this tool before being committed, and this
|
|
|
|
should be set up as either a precommit hook, or using an integration in your
|
|
|
|
IDE.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Naming
|
|
|
|
Enso has some fairly simple general naming conventions, though the sections
|
|
|
|
below may provide more rules for use in specific cases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Types are written using `UpperCamelCase`.
|
|
|
|
- Variables and function names are written using `camelCase`.
|
|
|
|
- If a name contains an initialism or acronym, all parts of that initialism
|
|
|
|
should be of the same case: `httpRequest` or `makeHTTPRequest`.
|
|
|
|
- Short variable names such as `a` and `b` should only be used in contexts where
|
|
|
|
there is no other appropriate name, and should _never_ be used to refer to
|
|
|
|
temporary data in a function.
|
|
|
|
- Names should be descriptive, even if this makes them longer.
|
|
|
|
|
2019-09-27 16:55:58 +03:00
|
|
|
## Package Structure and Naming
|
|
|
|
Enso follows the
|
|
|
|
[Java convention for naming packages](https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/package/namingpkgs.html):
|
|
|
|
package name components may contain only lower case characters and, if
|
|
|
|
necessary, an underscore character. All Enso package names should be prefixed
|
|
|
|
with `org.enso`. For example, the package for implementation of `File Manager`
|
|
|
|
project should be named `org.enso.filemanager`.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When the name of the file in the package is the same as the final component of
|
|
|
|
the package name, the file should be moved one level up. For examples, if
|
|
|
|
`File Manager` project contains `FileManager.java` file, then the file should
|
|
|
|
be placed directly in the `org.enso` package instead of `org.enso.filemanager`.
|
|
|
|
This is to avoid repetitious constructs like `org.enso.filemanager.FileManager`.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### The Public API
|
|
|
|
In order to produce as flexible a codebase as possible, we tend not to make use
|
|
|
|
of access modifiers in our code (`protected`, `private`, and so on). Instead, we
|
|
|
|
use the concept of `Internal` modules to separate public from private.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you are writing code in a package `X.Y.MyType` and would like to signal that
|
|
|
|
a particular construct (e.g. a function) is for internal use in that package,
|
|
|
|
you should create a `X.Y.MyType.Internal` package. You can then write the
|
|
|
|
relevant language construct in that package instead of the source package.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Using Access Modifiers
|
|
|
|
There are, however, a few notable exceptions to the above:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- **Safety:** Privacy modifiers (e.g. `private` and `protected`) should be
|
|
|
|
used to enforce an API contract around safety.
|
|
|
|
- **Reducing Overhead:** As the `Internal` module is a separate module, there
|
|
|
|
can (under some circumstances) be some overhead for its use. If you are
|
|
|
|
writing code on a performance-critical path, you may instead make use of
|
|
|
|
access modifiers.
|
|
|
|
- **Enabling Optimisations:** The JVM is capable of performing optimisations by
|
|
|
|
making use of visibility information (e.g. in the interpreter). If you are
|
|
|
|
writing performance-critical code, you may use access modifiers to provide the
|
|
|
|
JVM with additional information.
|
|
|
|
|
2019-06-26 12:29:42 +03:00
|
|
|
## Commenting
|
2019-07-24 15:05:45 +03:00
|
|
|
Comments in code are a tricky area to get right as we have found that comments
|
|
|
|
often expire quickly, and in absence of a way to validate them, remain incorrect
|
|
|
|
for long periods of time. In order to best deal with this problem, we make the
|
|
|
|
keeping of comments up-to-date into an integral part of our programming practice
|
|
|
|
while also limiting the types and kinds of comments we allow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comments across the Enso codebases fall into three main types:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- **Documentation Comments:** API documentation for all language constructs that
|
|
|
|
can have it (classes, methods, and so on).
|
|
|
|
- **Source Notes:** Detailed explorations of design reasoning that avoid
|
|
|
|
cluttering the code itself.
|
|
|
|
- **Tasks:** Things that need doing or fixing in the codebase.
|
2019-06-26 12:29:42 +03:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When we write comments, we try to follow one general guideline. A comment should
|
|
|
|
explain _what_ and _why_, without mentioning _how_. The _how_ should be
|
|
|
|
self-explanatory from reading the code, and if you find that it is not, that is
|
|
|
|
a sign that the code in question needs refactoring.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Code should be written in such a way that it guides you over what it does, and
|
|
|
|
comments should not be used as a crutch for badly-designed code.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Documentation Comments
|
|
|
|
One of the primary forms of comment that we allow across the Enso codebases is
|
2019-09-27 16:55:58 +03:00
|
|
|
the doc comment. We use these comments to document the public API of a module,
|
|
|
|
as defined in [The Public API](#the-public-api). For constructs that _are_ part
|
|
|
|
of the public API, the following should be documented:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. **Top-Level Type Definitions:** All type definitions must be accompanied by a
|
|
|
|
doc comment. This includes nested classes.
|
|
|
|
2. **Functions:** Function documentation should provide at-a-glance intuition
|
|
|
|
for how to use that function.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Documentation comments are intended for consumption by the users of the API, and
|
|
|
|
are written using the standard JavaDoc syntax. Doc comments should contain:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. **Summary:** A one-line summary of the construct's behaviour. This should be
|
|
|
|
a valid sentence with 'this X' (where X = class, method, etc) prepended to
|
|
|
|
it.
|
|
|
|
2. **Description (Optional):** Any useful information that would be necessary
|
|
|
|
for a consumer of the API to know (that is not encoded in the types). This
|
|
|
|
should be written in grammatically correct English.
|
|
|
|
3. **Parameters and Returns:** The return value must always be described. If the
|
|
|
|
parameters are _all_ obvious from their names, you must omit the `@param`
|
|
|
|
annotations. If one or more parameters require explanation (for things not
|
|
|
|
expressed in their name or type), then all parameters must be annotated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An example of a valid set of doc comments is provided below:
|
2019-06-26 12:29:42 +03:00
|
|
|
|
2019-09-27 16:55:58 +03:00
|
|
|
```java
|
|
|
|
/**
|
|
|
|
* Contains an implementation of a span tree.
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* This tree implementation provides O(log(n)) average and worst-case complexity
|
|
|
|
* for insertion, lookup and
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* @param <T> the type of the tree's elements
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
public class SpanTree<T> implements Tree<T> {
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/** Constructs an empty tree. */
|
|
|
|
public Tree() {}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/**
|
|
|
|
* Inserts the provided element into the span tree.
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* The complexity of insertion is O(log(n)) in both the average and worst
|
|
|
|
* cases.
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* @param element the element to be inserted into the tree
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
public void insert(T element) {
|
|
|
|
// ...
|
|
|
|
}
|
2019-06-26 12:29:42 +03:00
|
|
|
|
2019-09-27 16:55:58 +03:00
|
|
|
private class Node<T> {
|
|
|
|
// ...
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
```
|
2019-06-26 12:29:42 +03:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Source Notes
|
|
|
|
Source Notes is a mechanism for moving detailed design information about a piece
|
|
|
|
of code out of the code itself. In doing so, it retains the key information
|
2019-09-27 16:55:58 +03:00
|
|
|
about the design while not impeding the flow of the code. They are used in the
|
|
|
|
following circumstances:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- **Design Information:** Documentation about _why_ something was written in a
|
|
|
|
particular fashion, as well as information on the process that led to it being
|
|
|
|
done this way.
|
|
|
|
- **Explaining Complexity:** If an implementation uses complex constructs or any
|
|
|
|
elements that are non-obvious, these should be explained as part of a source
|
|
|
|
note.
|
|
|
|
- **Knowledge Provenance:** Explaining where some knowledge (e.g. a mathematical
|
|
|
|
formula or an algorithm) was obtained from. It is also useful to accompany
|
|
|
|
these by some commentary on _why_ the choice was made.
|
|
|
|
- **Safety:** Any unsafe usage of a function must be accompanied by a source
|
|
|
|
note that explains what makes this particular usage safe.
|
2019-06-26 12:29:42 +03:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source notes are detailed comments that, like all comments, explain both the
|
|
|
|
_what_ and the _why_ of the code being described. In very rare cases, it may
|
|
|
|
include some _how_, but only to refer to why a particular method was chosen to
|
|
|
|
achieve the goals in question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A source note comment is broken into two parts:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. **Referrer:** This is a small comment left at the point where the explanation
|
|
|
|
is relevant. It takes the following form: `// Note [Note Name]`, where
|
|
|
|
`Note Name` is a unique identifier across the codebase. These names should be
|
|
|
|
descriptive, and make sure you search for it before using it, in case it is
|
|
|
|
already in use.
|
|
|
|
2. **Source Note:** This is the comment itself, which is a large block comment
|
|
|
|
placed after the first function in which it is referred to in the module. It
|
|
|
|
uses the java block-comment syntax `/* ... */`, and the first line names
|
|
|
|
the note using the same referrer as above: `/* Note [Note Name]`. The name(s)
|
|
|
|
in the note are underlined using a string of the `~` (tilde) character.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A source note may contain sections within it where necessary. These are titled
|
|
|
|
using the following syntax: `== Note [Note Name (Section Name)]`, and can be
|
|
|
|
referred to from a referrer much as the main source note can be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sometimes it is necessary to reference a source note in another module, but this
|
|
|
|
should never be done in-line. Instead, a piece of code should reference a source
|
|
|
|
note in the same module that references the other note while providing
|
|
|
|
additional context to that reference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```java
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
public SimplM<SimplEnv, OutExpr> prepRHS(SimplEnv env, OutExpr outExpr) {
|
|
|
|
var ty1 = coercionKind(env); // Note [Float Coercions]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (!isUnliftedType(ty1)) {
|
|
|
|
var newTy1 = convertTy(ty1) // Note [Float Coercions (Unlifted)]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...more code defining prepRHS...
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* Note [Float Coercions]
|
2019-07-26 15:00:49 +03:00
|
|
|
* ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
* When we find the binding
|
2019-09-27 16:55:58 +03:00
|
|
|
* x = cast(e, co)
|
2019-07-26 15:00:49 +03:00
|
|
|
* we'd like to transform it to
|
|
|
|
* x' = e
|
|
|
|
* x = cast(x, co) // A trivial binding
|
|
|
|
* There's a chance that e will be a constructor application or function, or
|
|
|
|
* something like that, so moving the coercion to the usage site may well cancel
|
|
|
|
* the coercions and lead to further optimisation.
|
|
|
|
* ...more stuff about coercion floating...
|
2019-09-27 16:55:58 +03:00
|
|
|
*
|
2019-07-26 15:00:49 +03:00
|
|
|
* Note [Float Coercions (Unlifted)]
|
|
|
|
* ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
* ...explanations of floating for unlifted types...
|
|
|
|
*/
|
2019-06-26 12:29:42 +03:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A source note like this is useful whenever you have design decisions to explain,
|
|
|
|
but can also be used for:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- **Formulae and Algorithms:** If your code makes use of a mathematical formula,
|
|
|
|
or algorithm, it should note where the design element came from, preferably
|
|
|
|
with a link.
|
|
|
|
- **Safety:** Sometimes it is necessary to use an unsafe API in a context where
|
|
|
|
it is trivially made safe. You should always use a source note to explain why
|
|
|
|
its usage is safe in this context.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### TODO Comments
|
|
|
|
We follow a simple convention for `TODO` comments in our codebases:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- The line starts with `TODO` or `FIXME`.
|
|
|
|
- It is then followed by the author's initials `[ARA]`, or for multiple people
|
2019-09-27 16:55:58 +03:00
|
|
|
`[ARA, MK]`, in square brackets.
|
2019-06-26 12:29:42 +03:00
|
|
|
- It is then followed by an explanation of what needs to be done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For example:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```java
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
// TODO [ARA] This is a bit of a kludge. Instead of X it should to Y, accounting
|
|
|
|
// for the fact that Z.
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Other Comment Usage
|
|
|
|
There are, of course, a few other situations where commenting is very useful:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- **Commenting Out:** You may comment out code while developing it, but if you
|
|
|
|
commit any commented out code, it should be accompanied by an explanation of
|
|
|
|
why said code can't just be deleted.
|
|
|
|
- **Bugs:** You can use comments to indicate bugs in our code, as well as
|
|
|
|
third-party bugs. In both cases, the comment should link to the issue tracker
|
|
|
|
where the bug has been reported.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Program Design
|
|
|
|
Any good style guide goes beyond purely stylistic rules, and also talks about
|
|
|
|
design styles to use in code.
|
|
|
|
|
2019-10-02 22:07:29 +03:00
|
|
|
### Code Complexity
|
|
|
|
While we often have to write complex functionality, we want to ensure that the
|
|
|
|
code itself is kept as simple and easy to read as possible. To do this, please
|
|
|
|
use the following rules:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Write single-line expressions wherever possible, rather than writing one
|
|
|
|
complex chunk of code.
|
|
|
|
- Separate intermediate results out to their own variables with appropriate
|
|
|
|
names. Even if they are temporaries, giving them a name is a great aid to code
|
|
|
|
comprehension.
|
|
|
|
|
2019-06-26 12:29:42 +03:00
|
|
|
### Testing and Benchmarking
|
|
|
|
New code should always be accompanied by tests. These can be unit, integration,
|
|
|
|
or some combination of the two, and they should always aim to test the new code
|
|
|
|
in a rigorous fashion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- We tend to use ScalaTest, but also make use of ScalaCheck for property-based
|
|
|
|
testing.
|
|
|
|
- Tests should be declared in the project configuration so they can be trivially
|
|
|
|
run.
|
|
|
|
- A test file should be named after the module it tests.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Any performance-critical code should also be accompanied by a set of benchmarks.
|
|
|
|
These are intended to allow us to catch performance regressions as the code
|
|
|
|
evolves, but also ensure that we have some idea of the code's performance in
|
|
|
|
general.
|
|
|
|
|
2019-09-27 16:55:58 +03:00
|
|
|
- We use JMH for our benchmarks.
|
2019-06-26 12:29:42 +03:00
|
|
|
- We measure time, but also memory usage and CPU time where possible.
|
|
|
|
- Where relevant, benchmarks may set thresholds which, when surpassed, cause the
|
|
|
|
benchmark to fail. These thresholds should be set for a release build, and not
|
|
|
|
for a development build.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
_Do not benchmark a development build_ as the data you get will often be
|
|
|
|
entirely useless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Warnings, and Lints
|
|
|
|
In general, we aim for a codebase that is free of warnings and lints, and we do
|
|
|
|
this using the following ideas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Warnings
|
|
|
|
New code should introduce no new warnings onto master. You may build with
|
|
|
|
warnings on your own branch, but the code that is submitted as part of a PR
|
|
|
|
should not introduce new warnings. You should also endeavour to fix any warnings
|
|
|
|
that you come across during development.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sometimes it is impossible to fix a warning (often in situations involving the
|
|
|
|
use of macros or code-generation). In such cases, you are allowed to suppress
|
|
|
|
the warning locally, but this must be accompanied by a source note explaining
|
|
|
|
why you are doing so.
|