GNU bug report logs - #76446
[Patch Debbugs] Infrastructure Improvements

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Morgan Smith <morgan.j.smith <at> outlook.com>
To: Michael Albinus <michael.albinus <at> gmx.de>
Cc: 76446 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#76446: [PATCH v2 4/5] Makefile: Add target to run checkdoc on all files
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2025 14:17:34 -0500

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Michael Albinus <michael.albinus <at> gmx.de> writes:

> Morgan Smith <morgan.j.smith <at> outlook.com> writes:
>
>> --- a/Makefile
>> +++ b/Makefile
>> @@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ TESTTARGET=$(patsubst %.el,%.elc,$(TESTSOURCE))
>>
>>  INFOMANUALS=debbugs.info debbugs-ug.info
>>
>> -.PHONY: all build check clean
>> +.PHONY: all build check clean checkdoc
>>  .PRECIOUS: %.elc
>>
>>  %.elc: %.el
>> @@ -26,6 +26,9 @@ doc: $(INFOMANUALS)
>>
>>  build: $(TARGET)
>>
>> +checkdoc: $(SOURCE) $(TESTSOURCE)
>> +	@$(EMACS) -Q --batch -l test/debbugs-checkdoc-config.el $(foreach file,$^,"--eval=(checkdoc-file \"$(file)\")")
>> +
>>  check: build $(TESTTARGET)
>>  	@$(EMACS) -Q --batch -L . -L ./test $(foreach file,$(TESTSOURCE), -l $(file)) -f ert-run-tests-batch-and-exit
>
> This would be wrong. You don't need to load debbugs-helpers.el (it is
> required in *-tests.el) and debbugs-checkdoc-config.el (it isn't related
> to ert tests.
>

I've decided to move debbugs-checkdoc-config.el into a new resources
directory so that's no longer an issue.

I understand that loading 'debbugs-test-helpers.el' isn't needed but I
don't see any harm in doing so.

>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/test/debbugs-checkdoc-config.el
>> +  (setq checkdoc-ispell-lisp-words
>> +        '("ChangeLog" "ChangeLogs" "UTF" "alist" "args"
>> +          "armstrong" "backend" "bcc" "bugreport" "cdate" "cedet"
>> +          "coreutils" "cygwin" "debbugs" "debian" "el" "emacs"
>> +          "etags" "freemail" "fsf" "guix" "gw" "henoch" "hu"
>> +          "hyperestraier" "keymap" "magit" "magnus" "maint"
>> +          "maintainer" "maintainer's" "mbox" "mboxes" "minibuffer"
>> +          "moreinfo" "multibyte" "notabug" "paren" "persistency"
>> +          "regexp" "rescan" "rgm" "rmail" "severities" "sexp"
>> +          "solaris" "src" "sublist" "submitter" "submitter's"
>> +          "subproduct" "subqueries" "subquery" "teardown"
>> +          "unarchived" "unibyte" "unreproducible" "url" "util"
>> +          "wishlist" "wontfix" "wsdl" "www" "xsd" "zltuz")))
>
> Same comment here: couldn't it be a ressource file?

Again, why?

> And, more general: Could this file transformed into an ert test?

I mean it could be but then the build dependencies would expand to
include ispell and an appropriate dictionary.

In my opinion linting is not testing and should be optional.

> Best regards, Michael.

[v3-0004-Makefile-Add-target-to-run-checkdoc-on-all-files.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.