Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH 1/2] OvmfPkg: start using the ECC plugin exception list

["Sean" <spbrogan@outlook.com>]

I would also agree with Ard about shortening and simplifying the commit 
message if this commit is to go forward.

As a FYI the pytools issue you link to for ci comment is closed as "wont 
fix".  That doesn't change the fact that Edk2 CI runs an edk2 plugin 
that does potentially bad things to your local workspace and if your 
environment is configured in unexpected ways the plugin causes even more 
damage.

More importantly instead of this commit i ask if the community should 
have a quick value prop discussion of EccCheck and if in its current 
form needs changes or to be disabled...then that would be the change 
rather than this commit.  I am generally a fan of automation and tools 
based validation for code formatting but there has been a lot of noise 
with this one so it might not yet be ready to be a PR blocker.

Personally, related to code formatting/conventions i would much much 
rather see the community agree to a profile in clang-format or something 
similar and then just run the tool on all files in the tree and commit 
the changes.  This might mean we have to change a few things as i 
haven't been able to get clang-format to match exactly...but in the end 
auto formatting is in my opinion a better path forward than home grown 
tools to "enforce" formatting.  Auto formatting could be easily enforced 
in CI and is easy/nearly free for a contributor to resolve and help the 
community create consistent code.  I know its not perfect but it gets 
you 95% of the way without huge investment.


Thanks
Sean


On 12/4/2020 7:36 AM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> Hi Sean,
> 
> On 12/04/20 16:22, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> On 12/04/20 05:05, Sean Brogan wrote:
> 
>>> 3. Running CI locally should not be "somewhat risky".  More work needs
>>> to be done to identify the root cause of the above behavior but my guess
>>> is that it has to do with EccCheck and nothing to do with
>>> pytool-extensions.
>>
>> Sorry, I guess I mixed up my references a little bit. I consider running
>> binaries downloaded from the internet risky (except from the official
>> repos of my Linux distro(s)). But that's indeed a different topic and I
>> shouldn't have generalized. Sorry about that.
> 
> If you have a suggestion to improve the wording here, I'd like to hear
> that. I'd really like to go ahead with this patch set in one way or
> another, as it's blocking James's work from being merged. I don't want
> to merge a commit message here that you find offensive or just plain
> wrong though, so please suggest an improvement.
> 
> Ard, do you have any comments please?
> 
> Thanks
> Laszlo
>