From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 09:36:14 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH] utils/checkpackagelib: exclude two files from Config.in indentation check In-Reply-To: <5a3871cd6f3a9_bd01603ab4851a3@ultri3.mail> References: <20171218084303.12472-1-thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> <5a3871cd6f3a9_bd01603ab4851a3@ultri3.mail> Message-ID: <20171219093614.24bdc185@windsurf> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hello, On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 23:56:29 -0200, Ricardo Martincoski wrote: > On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 06:43 AM, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > > > package/x11r7/Config.in and package/kodi/Config.in do not comply with > > the normal Config.in indentation rules. However, this violation of the > > rule is legitimate, so let's skip them in check-package for this > > specific indentation check. > > > > This removes the last 314 remaining warnings on Config.in files. > > There are also 7 warnings for Config.in.host > They can obviously be fixed in another patch(es). Ah, right, forgot about Config.in.host. > After this/these we can add > -o -name 'Config.in' > or > -o -name 'Config.*' > to the check-package job in the gitlab yml, but I guess it is your plan already. This is obviously the plan. > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni > > > > --- > > Note: I am not totally sure about this patch. Indeed package/Config.in > > uses the same rule as package/{x11r7,kodi}/Config.in, but > > check-package doesn't report warnings about it. Perhaps I'm missing > > something in the check-package logic. > > See FILE_IS_FROM_A_PACKAGE in the main script. > I first limited the script to files in the package directory because there are > a lot of false warnings from other directories, many of them for historical > reasons. And... well... it also named check-"package". > I planned to expand it first to boot, then to to linux and toolchain, but I > didn't get to it yet. Ah, ok, makes sense. I think we will progressively want to extend it indeed, starting first with bootloaders, linux and toolchain as you suggest. > > + if self.filename in [ "./package/x11r7/Config.in", > > + "./package/kodi/Config.in" ]: > > The 4 warnings from flake8 already in the file I plan to fix in a series for > all flake8 warnings in the tree (those 4 actually adding '# noqa' since > check-package uses 'inspect' to know which check functions to run). > > But (in the case you stick to this solution, see the other e-mail) could you > fix those 2 new warnings? > utils/checkpackagelib/lib_config.py:137:38: E201 whitespace after '[' > utils/checkpackagelib/lib_config.py:138:65: E202 whitespace before ']' ACK. I don't use flake8, so I don't notice such warnings. I'll fix and resend if we agree that this is the appropriate solution. Best regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com