Re: [edk2-devel] Progress on getting Uncrustify working for EDK2?

["Michael Kubacki" <mikuback@linux.microsoft.com>]

Thanks Mike, I will look into that.

For others, I recently published an "uncrustify_poc_3" branch on my edk2 
fork that demonstrates the latest set of results I've obtained with 
Uncrustify tool changes and the configuration file. Most of the 
edk2-specific issues have been mitigated and I was able to reach a 
steady state of formatting results after two runs against the edk2 code 
base.

The results are starting to trend toward what might be "acceptable".

I would note that the edk2 repository and, in particular, certain 
packages like MdePkg and MdeModulePkg will have less substantial changes 
than others as the coding style tends to be followed more consistently 
there relative to many other repos.

Here's a link to the branch:

https://github.com/makubacki/edk2/tree/uncrustify_poc_3

There's a version here that attempts to add missing file and function 
headers (same branch just with that commit at the top):

https://github.com/makubacki/edk2/tree/uncrustify_poc_3_with_headers

Here's an Uncrustify application PR that I'm currently using the 
executable from for testing (it is in the PR build artifacts):

https://dev.azure.com/projectmu/Uncrustify/_git/Uncrustify/pullrequest/24

I'm interested in the discussion around style changes though we might be 
able to get away with less of those now. I am working on this in between 
other work so I also appreciate anyone willing to help out in any way.

Thanks,
Michael

On 10/7/2021 12:34 PM, Kinney, Michael D wrote:
> Hi Michael,
> 
> I am looking at your uncrustify_poc_3 branch, and I see an unexpected change
> related to use of IN/OUT in a function declaration.
> 
> File: MdeModulePkg\Logo\Logo.c
> 
> Before Uncrustify
> =================
> EFI_STATUS
> EFIAPI
> GetImage (
>    IN     EDKII_PLATFORM_LOGO_PROTOCOL          *This,
>    IN OUT UINT32                                *Instance,
>       OUT EFI_IMAGE_INPUT                       *Image,
>       OUT EDKII_PLATFORM_LOGO_DISPLAY_ATTRIBUTE *Attribute,
>       OUT INTN                                  *OffsetX,
>       OUT INTN                                  *OffsetY
>    )
> 
> After Uncrustify
> ================
> GetImage (
>    IN     EDKII_PLATFORM_LOGO_PROTOCOL          *This,
>    IN OUT UINT32                                *Instance,
>    OUT EFI_IMAGE_INPUT                       *Image,
>    OUT EDKII_PLATFORM_LOGO_DISPLAY_ATTRIBUTE *Attribute,
>    OUT INTN                                  *OffsetX,
>    OUT INTN                                  *OffsetY
>    )
> 
> It aligned the start of each parameter line with 2 space indent, but lost the
> alignment of the parameter names and did not do 2 spaces between the parameter
> type and parameter name.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Mike
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> From: Andrew Fish <afish@apple.com>
> Sent: Thursday, October 7, 2021 9:04 AM
> To: edk2-devel-groups-io <devel@edk2.groups.io>
> Cc: Leif Lindholm <leif@nuviainc.com>; mikuback@linux.microsoft.com; Marvin Häuser <mhaeuser@posteo.de>; Rebecca Cran <rebecca@nuviainc.com>; Michael Kubacki <Michael.Kubacki@microsoft.com>; Bret Barkelew <Bret.Barkelew@microsoft.com>; Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>; Andrew Fish <afish@apple.com>
> Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] Progress on getting Uncrustify working for EDK2?
> 
> On the git-blame front we might be able to build a recipe that walks past the code style and line ending commits that would could add to an FAQ or Wiki.
> 
> For bonus points we could add a git command that does this. You can add a Python git command to the repo by adding a git-<commandName> script in the path. So we could add a Python git command that skips blame of any of the known Uncrustify or line ending type commits. Basically `git eblame` that works just like `git blame` but skips formatting changes.
> 
> I’m working on a git-pgrep that only greps files used by a given build, hopeful I’ll be able to contribute that soon. My co-works keep finding bugs so I’m not quite done.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Andrew Fish
> 
> 
> On Oct 7, 2021, at 11:30 AM, Andrew Fish via http://groups.io <mailto:afish=apple.com@groups.io> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Oct 7, 2021, at 6:48 AM, Leif Lindholm <mailto:leif@nuviainc.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Michael,
> 
> Apologies, I've owed you a response (promised off-list) for a while
> now.
> 
> First, let me say I hugely appreciate this effort. Apart from aligning
> the codebase(s), this will reduce manual reviewing effort
> substantially, as well as cutting down on number of rework cycles for
> developers.
> 
> Looking at the changes to (well, the comments in) uncrustify, this
> seems to be constrained to:
> - Newline after '(' for multi-line function calls.
> - Dealing with "(("/"))" for DEBUG macros.
> - Function pointer typedefs:
>   - typedef\nEFIAPI
>   - closing parentheses indentation
> 
> I don't think I've made any secret over the years that I am not a
> massive fan of the EDK2 coding style in general. So I think for any
> of its quirks that are substantial enough that they require not just
> custom configuration but actual new function added to existing code
> conformance tools, this would be an excellent point to sanitise the
> coding style instead.
> 
> Taking these in order:
> 
> Newline after '('
> -----------------
> I think we already reached a level of flexibility around this, where
> we don't actually enforce this (or single argument per
> line). Personally, I'd be happy to update the coding style as
> required instead.
> 
> DEBUG macro parentheses
> -----------------------
> How does uncrustify treat DEBUG macros without this modification?
> Do we start getting everything turned into multi-level indented
> multi-line statements without this change?
> 
> Can we disable the rule that does not like the DEBUG macro? I seem to remember clang nags about some strange () usage, so maybe we would not lose that much?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Andrew Fish
> 
> 
> 
> Function pointer typedefs:
> --------------------------
> I don't see that function pointer typedefs need to rigidly follow the
> same pattern as the declaration of functions implementing them. Could
> we update the coding style (if needed) instead?
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Leif
> 
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 16:00:38 -0400, Michael Kubacki wrote:
> 
> The edk2 branch was created here:
> https://github.com/makubacki/edk2/tree/uncrustify_poc_2
> 
> We have a Project Mu fork with custom changes to the Uncrustify tool to help
> comply with EDK II formatting here:
> https://dev.azure.com/projectmu/_git/Uncrustify
> 
> The latest information about the status and how to experiment with the
> configuration file and the tool are in that fork: https://dev.azure.com/projectmu/Uncrustify/_wiki/wikis/Uncrustify.wiki/1/Project-Mu-(EDK-II)-Fork-Readme
> 
> That said, I have also finished a CI plugin to run Uncrustify that should be
> ready soon to initially deploy in Project Mu. Before doing so, I am trying
> to settle on an initial configuration file that less strictly but more
> reliably formats the code than in the examples in those branches. For
> example, remove heuristics that when run against the same set of code
> multiple times can produce different results. An example would be a rule
> that reformats code because it exceeds a specified column width on one run
> but on the next run that reformatted code triggers a different rule to
> further align the code and so on. At least initially, some rules might be
> tweaked in a more conservative approach that can be tightened in the future.
> Once this configuration file is ready, we will baseline Project Mu code as
> an example and turn on the plugin. The CI plugin runs Uncrustify against
> modified files and if there's any changes, indicating a formatting
> deviation, the diff chunks are saved in a log so they can be viewed as a
> build artifact.
> 
> I am making progress on the updated config file and I should be able to post
> a "uncrustify_poc_3" branch soon with the results.
> 
> Regarding indentation, Marvin is right that Uncrustify cannot support edk2
> indentation style out-of-box. Some changes are made in that fork to handle
> the formatting. At this point, it can handle the indentation in the cases
> I've seen. Uncrustify does potentially give us the ability to massively
> deploy changes across the codebase in case a decision were made to change
> the style.
> 
> Thanks,
> Michael
> 
> On 8/16/2021 3:39 PM, Marvin Häuser wrote:
> 
> Hey Rebecca,
> 
> I think even Uncrustify has issues with the EDK II indentation style.
> You might want to check the UEFI Talkbox Discord server, I had a brief
> chat with Michael about it there. I don't think realistically any tool
> supports EDK II's indentation style however, so I'd propose it is
> changed. This could be for new submissions only, or actually the entire
> codebase could be reformatted at once with a good tool setup. While this
> screws with git blame, the (to my understanding) decided on CRLF -> LF
> change does that anyway, so at least two evils could be dealt with in
> one go really.
> 
> Best regards,
> Marvin
> 
> On 16/08/2021 21:34, Rebecca Cran wrote:
> 
> 
> cc devel@ .
> 
> On 8/16/21 1:33 PM, Rebecca Cran wrote:
> 
> 
> I noticed a message on Twitter about an idea of using Uncrustify
> for EDK2 instead of the ECC tool, and came across https://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=devel@edk2.groups.io&q=subject:%22Re%5C%3A+%5C%5Bedk2%5C-devel%5C%5D+TianoCore+Community+Meeting+Minutes+%5C-+2%5C%2F4%22&o=newest&f=1
> .
> 
> I was wondering if there's been any progress on it that I could
> check out?
> 
> 
> Michael Kubacki: in that message, you said:
> 
> "I'm planning to put up a branch that we can use as a reference
> for a conversation around uncrustify in the next couple of
> weeks."
> 
> 
> Did you end up creating that branch, and if so could you provide
> a link to it please?
> 
> 
> -- 
> Rebecca Cran
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>