Repository navigation
docs(inflight): record OpenRewrite as the answer to regex renames, and why it is not a speed win - #377
Merged
Conversation
…d why it is not a speed win Every rename here is a text sweep checked only by "it still compiles". `bin/rename-packages.sh` is the biggest instance and its header already records what that costs: freeze regions silently ignored on macOS, and a sweep that has to be spelled as an escaped-regex alternation because some files encode the package that way. The script asserts the renames git recorded *and* their pairing purely because the renamer cannot be trusted. OpenRewrite's `rewrite-maven-plugin` works off the compiled LST, so its rename recipes are type-aware. It is in no pom here. The note deliberately argues against the obvious pitch. Measured on #373's two rename passes, identifiers were about a third of the work; the rest was javadoc prose, test method names, notes in this directory, and a caveat paragraph that needed rewriting rather than renaming - none of which a recipe touches. So the case for adopting it is correctness on wide renames, not token or time savings on review-sized ones, and the note says so plainly rather than leaving someone to discover it after wiring the plugin in. Filed as `ci-` because the harness owns tooling, and left as a task with the three questions that have to be settled first - Jabel cross-compilation, whether recipes get reviewed like the shell gates, and whether it becomes a required lane. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Dependency Review✅ No vulnerabilities or license issues or OpenSSF Scorecard issues found.Scanned FilesNone |
✅ Duplicate Code ReportTwo engines run in parallel for cross-validation. Each has its own thresholds tuned to its baseline - the real safety net is the per-engine "max increase vs base" check. ✅ PMD CPD
No new clones introduced by this PR. ✅ jscpd (language-agnostic)
No new clones introduced by this PR. Powered by astubbs/duplicate-code-cross-check |
🧪🔒 Quarantine Lane Report
🔴 expected while the owner PR is open · 🟡🎲 flapper, pass proves nothing · 🚨 a deterministic quarantined test passing means its fix landed: delete its |
|
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description
One
docs/inflight/note. No code, no tooling wired in.Records that every rename in this repo is a
sed/grepsweep verified only by "it still compiles",names OpenRewrite's
rewrite-maven-pluginas the type-aware alternative, and states the case foradopting it - explicitly arguing against the obvious pitch, because the obvious pitch is wrong.
Measured against #373's two rename passes (eleven identifier renames from a
review), identifiers were roughly a third of the work. The rest was javadoc prose, test method names,
notes in
docs/inflight/, and a caveat paragraph that needed rewriting rather than renaming - noneof which a recipe touches. So the note says adopt it for correctness on wide renames, not for
speed, and points at
bin/rename-packages.shas the case that justifies it rather than review-sizedrenames.
Left as a task with three questions to settle first: Jabel cross-compilation, whether recipes get
reviewed like the shell gates do, and whether it becomes a required lane.
Checklist