Re: guix lint false positives and RFC patch

2023-01-28 Thread Maxime Devos
On 28-01-2023 22:07, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: The other thing I remember being caught up on, which was not a deal-breaker, per se, was hoping for a way to loop through a bunch of @SOMETHING things ... I was not happy with: +(if (>= (string-length (string-replace-substring +

Re: guix lint false positives and RFC patch

2023-01-28 Thread Vagrant Cascadian
On 2023-01-27, Simon Tournier wrote: > On sam., 12 nov. 2022 at 17:54, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >> On 2022-11-05, Ludovic Courtès wrote: >>> Vagrant Cascadian skribis: From bfa13fdd3616839883e50efbbc05fb132610ce67 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Vagrant Cascadian Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2

Re: guix lint false positives and RFC patch

2023-01-27 Thread Simon Tournier
Hi, On sam., 12 nov. 2022 at 17:54, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > On 2022-11-05, Ludovic Courtès wrote: >> Vagrant Cascadian skribis: >>> From bfa13fdd3616839883e50efbbc05fb132610ce67 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >>> From: Vagrant Cascadian >>> Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2022 19:56:12 -0700 >>> Subject: [PATCH

Re: guix lint false positives and RFC patch

2022-11-17 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, Vagrant Cascadian skribis: > +(test-equal "synopsis: exclude @code from long synopsis" > + '() > + (single-lint-warning-message > + (let ((pkg (dummy-package "x" > + (synopsis > + (string-append > +

Re: guix lint false positives and RFC patch

2022-11-12 Thread Vagrant Cascadian
On 2022-11-05, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Vagrant Cascadian skribis: >> From bfa13fdd3616839883e50efbbc05fb132610ce67 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >> From: Vagrant Cascadian >> Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2022 19:56:12 -0700 >> Subject: [PATCH 01/12] guix: lint: Exclude some "@" symbols from various >> checks. >

Re: guix lint false positives and RFC patch

2022-11-05 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, Vagrant Cascadian skribis: > From bfa13fdd3616839883e50efbbc05fb132610ce67 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Vagrant Cascadian > Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2022 19:56:12 -0700 > Subject: [PATCH 01/12] guix: lint: Exclude some "@" symbols from various > checks. > > The visual representation of "@code{

Re: guix lint false positives and RFC patch

2022-11-04 Thread Vagrant Cascadian
On 2022-11-03, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > On 2022-11-03, Ludovic Courtès wrote: >> Vagrant Cascadian skribis: >> >>> --- a/guix/lint.scm >>> +++ b/guix/lint.scm >>> @@ -313,7 +313,8 @@ (define (tests-explicitly-enabled?) >>>'())) >>> >>> (define (properly-starts-sentence? s) >>> - (str

Re: guix lint false positives and RFC patch

2022-11-03 Thread Vagrant Cascadian
On 2022-11-03, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Vagrant Cascadian skribis: > >> --- a/guix/lint.scm >> +++ b/guix/lint.scm >> @@ -313,7 +313,8 @@ (define (tests-explicitly-enabled?) >>'())) >> >> (define (properly-starts-sentence? s) >> - (string-match "^[(\"'`[:upper:][:digit:]]" s)) >> + (s

Re: guix lint false positives and RFC patch

2022-11-03 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Vagrant Cascadian skribis: > --- a/guix/lint.scm > +++ b/guix/lint.scm > @@ -313,7 +313,8 @@ (define (tests-explicitly-enabled?) >'())) > > (define (properly-starts-sentence? s) > - (string-match "^[(\"'`[:upper:][:digit:]]" s)) > + (string-match "^[(\"'`[:upper:][:digit:]]" > +

guix lint false positives and RFC patch

2022-11-02 Thread Vagrant Cascadian
I've noticed a handful of false positives in guix lint checking descriptions and synopsis, and tracked several down to the use of @code{} and similar. The attached patch partly addresses this, though could definitely be written better (e.g. handling more cases, also stripping out the relevent "}",