[Freeipa-devel] [PATCH] 14 Run lint during each build

[Martin Kosek]

On Wed, 2011-04-27 at 09:56 -0400, Adam Young wrote:
> On 04/27/2011 09:34 AM, Dmitri Pal wrote:
> > On 04/27/2011 08:13 AM, Jan Cholasta wrote:
> >> On 27.4.2011 13:17, Martin Kosek wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 2011-04-27 at 12:40 +0200, Jan Cholasta wrote:
> >>>> On 26.4.2011 18:14, Martin Kosek wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 13:42 +0200, Jan Cholasta wrote:
> >>>>>> Automatically run the lint script during make rpms|client-rpms|srpms.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> NACK until ticket 1184 is resolved and pushed. Currently, pylint check
> >>>>> fails when optional python packages (like python-rhsm) are not
> >>>>> installed
> >>>>> on the machine. We should be able to build IPA without those packages
> >>>>> installed.
> >>>> I think printing a note asking the developer to kindly install the
> >>>> missing packages would be sufficient. AFAIK there are currently only 2
> >>>> optional packages: python-rhsm and python-krbV. python-krbV is optional
> >>>> only for the client part of IPA, so you most likely have it already
> >>>> installed and installing python-rhsm is not really much of a chore.
> >>>> That
> >>>> way all of the code would always be checked and the lint script
> >>>> would be
> >>>> free of the unnecessary complexity of handling missing packages.
> >>> I don't think this is a right approach. When the package is optional
> >>> (currently it may be python-rhsm and python-krbV only, but there may be
> >>> others in the future) I shouldn't be obliged to install them in order to
> >>> build IPA.
> >> You shouldn't be obliged to install them as a user. As a developer,
> >> you should be ready for all kinds of crazy stuff IMHO.
> >>
> >>> When somebody develops something related with the optional
> >>> package he has them installed and the lint will check the relevant code
> >>> too.
> >> All of the code goes to the package, so it all should be checked
> >> during the build.
> >>
> >> Imagine situation like this: You change something in module A,
> >> accidentally breaking functionality that module B depends on. Module A
> >> is checked and no error is found (because it's the kind of issue that
> >> exhibits itself only in certain conditions). Module B isn't checked,
> >> because it also depends on a not-installed optional package. If it was
> >> checked, it would report an error that would lead you to the error in
> >> module A. But everything looks fine, so the build succeeds, even when
> >> the error is there.
> >>
> >> The situation might be improbable, but IMO the code should be checked
> >> in the same ecosystem every time anyway, because weird stuff could
> >> happen if it wasn't.
> >>
> >>> It is not that big deal, I just think it would be an annoyance for
> >>> developers. But maybe there is a different opinion.
> >> I know we developers are lazy folk, but this is a matter of writing
> >> one simple command, just one time.
> >>
> >>> Martin
> >>>
> >>
> > How about a compromise?
> > By default everything is expected to be installed.
> > But there is a command line switch that allows to skip modules you want
> > to skip. You provide the switch and the list of the modules to skip and
> > build will validate only modules that are not in the list.
> >
> > Will something like this work?
> >
> Actually, make the command line switch just means that a  Lint failure 
> doesn't stop the build.  That way, by default the build will fail unless 
> everything is there and checked, but there is a way to move forward for 
> building with a subset of packages.

Yes, I think we will can settle with a compromise. My only concern was
not to force the developers to install unnecessary packages for build.

I would suggest that the build (or "make lint") succeeds without those
optional packages installed, but a warning is printed out that some
packages are missing and not all the code is checked.

Then it is a developers responsibility to handle this and wouldn't be
force to install those packages for his test builds etc.

Martin