Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v1 0/8] Fix new typos reported

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

Hi Ard,

I understand it is frustrating for things that were working to suddenly 
stop and errors to have been missed by the plugin in the past. I'm also 
surprised that some of these issues were previously not caught.

To clarify, adding the words to the ignore list was not really that much 
time. The plugin output gives the words to add to the list (in JSON) so 
that's a copy/paste operation and an IDE can remove duplicate lines 
instantly so that was about a 10-30 second or so solution. Submitting 
the BZ was another 1-2 minutes

Following the the edk2 contribution process to manually add maintainers 
per package, rebase and manually add review tags, parse feedback inline 
to unified diffs over email, generate patch files, and update the cover 
letter was a relatively larger consumer of time. For v2, I took 
ownership of the BZ and spent more time to try to reduce the likelihood 
of unexpected issues appearing in the future.

V2 will do the following:
   1. Complete BZ 3929.
   2. Lock the cspell version to v5.20.0 to prevent latest from
      unexpectedly causing issues in the future.
   3. Update the common word list in cspell.base.yaml to prevent package
      level duplication in the future.
   4. Include Sami's code review tags.

I'm checking the CI results in the PR now and once it passes, I'll send 
it on the list.

https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/pull/2903

Thanks,
Michael

On 5/17/2022 4:06 PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Tue, 17 May 2022 at 21:32, Michael Kubacki
> <mikuback@linux.microsoft.com> wrote:
>>
>> As noted in the patch, this BZ was filed to follow up and review those:
>> https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3929
>>
>> I don't like doing this either but the spelling errors do exist. I am
>> trying not to make CI policy changes as those can be controversial even
>> among maintainers in the same package and is an orthogonal conversation
>> to addressing pre-existing issues within the presently defined CI policy.
>>
>> In this specific case, the ignore list in the package CI YAML file can
>> be used to explicitly identify known typos and the BZ explicitly tracks
>> reviewing those so there's a well defined path to resolve and fix the issue.
>>
>> I personally feel that's better than ignoring the problem entirely but
>> it also depends on where your package code ends up getting consumed and
>> the requirements and burden it might place on those consumers. For
>> example, if it ends up in auto generated documentation and that
>> documentation has spell check enabled, it becomes a downstream override.
>>
>> There's currently several PRs active that fix typos so others see some
>> value in this work (as opposed to disabling spell checking):
>>     - https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/pull/2900
>>     - https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/pull/2789
>>     - https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/pull/1955
>>
>> For future changes, I suggested lock the cspell version and I think
>> that's an option to prevent these from appearing at unknown points in
>> time. I'm not appointed to make authoritative decisions about that (to
>> my understanding) so I am making that suggestion for the community to
>> consider.
>>
>> Again, I don't have a strong opinion on this topic, I've been waiting 4
>> weeks to get the v5 patch series merged (other busy work in between),
>> and you're the maintainer. It sounds like if I take ownership of BZ
>> 3929, you might be okay with leaving it enabled? I can do that but
>> there's so many words in this instance, I wanted someone closer to the
>> package contents to look at it.
>>
>> If you still strongly feel you would prefer to have it disabled, I will
>> pull that change in and see if any opposing opinions surface. However, I
>> wanted to double check this is what you want to do right now.
>>
> 
> If you feel it is worth your time to fix typos in existing comments, I
> won't stand in your way. But I don't feel it is worth my time, given
> that it doesn't actually improve the code, except for by some
> artifical measure of spelling-correctness, which has no bearing at all
> on what runs on people's machines, and as far as I can tell, these
> typoes do not create any confusion regarding what the comments intend
> to convey.
> 
> Adding typoed words to the ignorelist is the worst possible solution,
> because you will be wasting your time only to placate the machine,
> accumulating technical debt in the code base without actually fixing
> the problems. So that is out of the question for me.
> 
> If you want to fix these issues, that is also fine. I will review/ack
> with priority provided that I actually have any bandwidth available.
> 
> But if we are working for the CI instead of the other way around,
> something is seriously wrong. If we can't roll a stable tag because
> the CI wants us to fix our typoes first, we have to be able to
> override it. And corrupting the codebase by adding typoes to the
> ignorelist just to placate the CI is preposterous..
> 
> 
> 
>