[edk2-devel] Uncrustify configuration file and file/function templates

[Michael D Kinney]

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 at edk2.groups.io <devel at edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of Michael Kubacki
> Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2021 10:25 AM
> To: devel at edk2.groups.io; Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney at intel.com>
> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 



-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#83790): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/83790
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/87100207/1813853
Group Owner: devel+owner at edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [edk2-devel-archive at redhat.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-