Hi Michael,
Apologies, I've owed you a response (promised off-list) for a while
now.
First, let me say I hugely appreciate this effort. Apart from aligning
the codebase(s), this will reduce manual reviewing effort
substantially, as well as cutting down on number of rework cycles for
developers.
Looking at the changes to (well, the comments in) uncrustify, this
seems to be constrained to:
- Newline after '(' for multi-line function calls.
- Dealing with "(("/"))" for DEBUG macros.
- Function pointer typedefs:
- typedef\nEFIAPI
- closing parentheses indentation
I don't think I've made any secret over the years that I am not a
massive fan of the EDK2 coding style in general. So I think for any
of its quirks that are substantial enough that they require not just
custom configuration but actual new function added to existing code
conformance tools, this would be an excellent point to sanitise the
coding style instead.
Taking these in order:
Newline after '('
-----------------
I think we already reached a level of flexibility around this, where
we don't actually enforce this (or single argument per
line). Personally, I'd be happy to update the coding style as
required instead.
DEBUG macro parentheses
-----------------------
How does uncrustify treat DEBUG macros without this modification?
Do we start getting everything turned into multi-level indented
multi-line statements without this change?
Function pointer typedefs:
--------------------------
I don't see that function pointer typedefs need to rigidly follow the
same pattern as the declaration of functions implementing them. Could
we update the coding style (if needed) instead?
Best Regards,
Leif
On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 16:00:38 -0400, Michael Kubacki wrote:
> The edk2 branch was created here:
> https://github.com/makubacki/edk2/tree/uncrustify_poc_2
>
> We have a Project Mu fork with custom changes to the Uncrustify tool to help
> comply with EDK II formatting here:
> https://dev.azure.com/projectmu/_git/Uncrustify
>
> The latest information about the status and how to experiment with the
> configuration file and the tool are in that fork:
> https://dev.azure.com/projectmu/Uncrustify/_wiki/wikis/Uncrustify.wiki/1/Project-Mu-(EDK-II)-Fork-Readme
>
> That said, I have also finished a CI plugin to run Uncrustify that should be
> ready soon to initially deploy in Project Mu. Before doing so, I am trying
> to settle on an initial configuration file that less strictly but more
> reliably formats the code than in the examples in those branches. For
> example, remove heuristics that when run against the same set of code
> multiple times can produce different results. An example would be a rule
> that reformats code because it exceeds a specified column width on one run
> but on the next run that reformatted code triggers a different rule to
> further align the code and so on. At least initially, some rules might be
> tweaked in a more conservative approach that can be tightened in the future.
> Once this configuration file is ready, we will baseline Project Mu code as
> an example and turn on the plugin. The CI plugin runs Uncrustify against
> modified files and if there's any changes, indicating a formatting
> deviation, the diff chunks are saved in a log so they can be viewed as a
> build artifact.
>
> I am making progress on the updated config file and I should be able to post
> a "uncrustify_poc_3" branch soon with the results.
>
> Regarding indentation, Marvin is right that Uncrustify cannot support edk2
> indentation style out-of-box. Some changes are made in that fork to handle
> the formatting. At this point, it can handle the indentation in the cases
> I've seen. Uncrustify does potentially give us the ability to massively
> deploy changes across the codebase in case a decision were made to change
> the style.
>
> Thanks,
> Michael
>
> On 8/16/2021 3:39 PM, Marvin Häuser wrote:
> > Hey Rebecca,
> >
> > I think even Uncrustify has issues with the EDK II indentation style.
> > You might want to check the UEFI Talkbox Discord server, I had a brief
> > chat with Michael about it there. I don't think realistically any tool
> > supports EDK II's indentation style however, so I'd propose it is
> > changed. This could be for new submissions only, or actually the entire
> > codebase could be reformatted at once with a good tool setup. While this
> > screws with git blame, the (to my understanding) decided on CRLF -> LF
> > change does that anyway, so at least two evils could be dealt with in
> > one go really.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Marvin
> >
> > On 16/08/2021 21:34, Rebecca Cran wrote:
> > >
> > > cc devel@ .
> > >
> > > On 8/16/21 1:33 PM, Rebecca Cran wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I noticed a message on Twitter about an idea of using Uncrustify
> > > > for EDK2 instead of the ECC tool, and came across
> > > > https://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=devel@edk2.groups.io&q=subject:%22Re%5C%3A+%5C%5Bedk2%5C-devel%5C%5D+TianoCore+Community+Meeting+Minutes+%5C-+2%5C%2F4%22&o=newest&f=1
> > > > .
> > > >
> > > > I was wondering if there's been any progress on it that I could
> > > > check out?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Michael Kubacki: in that message, you said:
> > > >
> > > > "I'm planning to put up a branch that we can use as a reference
> > > > for a conversation around uncrustify in the next couple of
> > > > weeks."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Did you end up creating that branch, and if so could you provide
> > > > a link to it please?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Rebecca Cran
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#81570): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/81570
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/84932137/21656
Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
