From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from linux.microsoft.com (linux.microsoft.com [13.77.154.182]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web12.333.1637088840460625146 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 2021 10:54:00 -0800 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=pass header.i=@linux.microsoft.com header.s=default header.b=j8rKCvsF; spf=pass (domain: linux.microsoft.com, ip: 13.77.154.182, mailfrom: mikuback@linux.microsoft.com) Received: from [10.0.0.19] (c-73-27-179-174.hsd1.fl.comcast.net [73.27.179.174]) by linux.microsoft.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 974C620C636F; Tue, 16 Nov 2021 10:53:59 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 linux.microsoft.com 974C620C636F DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.microsoft.com; s=default; t=1637088839; bh=Ralvx44qYHJDCieij/5G8BejFDLruEMvENw61Qv1B/Q=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=j8rKCvsFGZRZ4NtSRFNULxiFp3kbCEpDsa8gyPbhVHEmmvty1Fj4vqAuNpFZTqKh3 zL5yN+Nn10ULxe3jtfPptYSJN9kTTxtp3VuSvqdbDNAng/s3V2/WQ2SCwJXpLwiat7 CE6x9mE9564MvzSPBfjCQ3y3U0DEkqL3nzVM4wio= Message-ID: Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2021 13:53:58 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.3.0 Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] Uncrustify configuration file and file/function templates To: devel@edk2.groups.io, michael.d.kinney@intel.com References: From: "Michael Kubacki" In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I would prefer to have a single version of the file if possible to reduce synchronization issues across the two copies. It seems that a CI plugin to read the contents of the template files and search incoming code for that text wouldn't be too difficult to add as a new plugin. Thanks, Michael On 11/16/2021 1:31 PM, Michael D Kinney wrote: > Hi Michael, > > Should we have 2 versions of the config file? > > One used by automation tools such as CI and git hooks that do not use the > templates. > > And another one that a developer can optionally use that will add the > templates for missing file/function headers that the developer then needs > to fill out. > > One concern I have about the templates is if they get used but a developer > does not fill in the missing information. It would be best if a CI check > rejects a file/function header that has not been filled in. > > Mike > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: devel@edk2.groups.io On Behalf Of Michael Kubacki >> Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2021 10:25 AM >> To: devel@edk2.groups.io; Kinney, Michael D >> Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] Uncrustify configuration file and file/function templates >> >> Hi Mike, >> >> Those were just disabled because I typically run a separate invocation >> of Uncrustify with them enabled to isolate code which is missing >> file/function headers. My thought was the templates are helpful but we >> would need to individually identify where they are placed to file TCBZs >> for maintainers to replace the template with the actual information. >> >> In some of my previous poc branches (like >> https://github.com/makubacki/edk2/commits/uncrustify_poc_3_with_headers), I >> also pushed a branch with those results. >> >> So I do think we would want them enabled in the final config file. We >> can also review the contents of the templates in the future patch series >> to see if any changes are recommended. >> >> I prefer using a .uncrustify directory to help group related collateral >> but I don't have a strong opinion there. >> >> Thanks, >> Michael >> >> On 11/16/2021 12:16 PM, Michael D Kinney wrote: >>> Hi Michael, >>> >>> In your POC branch (https://github.com/makubacki/edk2/tree/uncrustify_poc_5), I see the >>> uncrustify.cfg configuration file in the root. >>> >>> https://github.com/makubacki/edk2/blob/uncrustify_poc_5/uncrustify.cfg >>> >>> However, in your Wiki, you provide examples where this configuration file is in an >>> .uncrustify directory >>> >>> https://dev.azure.com/projectmu/Uncrustify/_wiki/wikis/Uncrustify.wiki/1/Project-Mu-(EDK-II)-Fork-Readme >>> >>> The uncrustify.cfg files also contains commented out settings for the file header >>> and function header templates. >>> >>> # cmt_insert_file_header = default_file_header.txt >>> # cmt_insert_func_header = default_function_header.txt >>> >>> Are these disabled on purpose? >>> >>> Do we want to enable them? If so, should the uncrustify configuration file >>> and the templates go into a .uncrustify directory? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Mike >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >