From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124])
by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 218A5A09E4;
Thu, 22 Apr 2021 12:21:35 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D663406A3;
Thu, 22 Apr 2021 12:21:34 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65])
by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 602B440143
for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 12:21:32 +0200 (CEST)
IronPort-SDR: /hpIgyQ8W7kfdxJwOE0RRIqaJgnIINkxYmpFnsAFYuHAe51+GszKv5eIY6rsn0UiVdY/S6WEMH
LwDKNKC596cw==
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6200,9189,9961"; a="195891008"
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.82,242,1613462400"; d="scan'208";a="195891008"
Received: from orsmga003.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.27])
by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384;
22 Apr 2021 03:21:30 -0700
IronPort-SDR: NmsmyA6oHuPZH9//X3bej3sMXzAmJT4BTKhIlISorlnL9IMsT7fXtZvMENGvmZk6L10h/6G0su
/i5RR3ax9FCw==
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.82,242,1613462400"; d="scan'208";a="384726388"
Received: from aburakov-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.213.222.135])
([10.213.222.135])
by orsmga003-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384;
22 Apr 2021 03:21:29 -0700
To: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, thomas@monjalon.net
References: <20210421220358.2597249-1-thomas@monjalon.net>
<20210422090211.320855-1-bruce.richardson@intel.com>
<b9b6c02e-fb3f-f514-a7fe-bdd35c022512@intel.com>
<YIFIxFDur6sctz9T@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com>
From: "Burakov, Anatoly" <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>
Message-ID: <5af7d31b-332d-3dc9-a70b-54cbdb58c3ef@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2021 11:21:26 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <YIFIxFDur6sctz9T@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH] devtools: script to check meson
indentation of lists
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
<mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
<mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
On 22-Apr-21 10:58 AM, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 10:40:37AM +0100, Burakov, Anatoly wrote:
>> On 22-Apr-21 10:02 AM, Bruce Richardson wrote:
>>> This is a draft script developed when I was working on the whitespace rework
>>> changes, since extended a little to attempt to fix some trailing comma issues.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
>>> ---
>>> devtools/dpdk_meson_check.py | 106 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> 1 file changed, 106 insertions(+)
>>> create mode 100755 devtools/dpdk_meson_check.py
>>>
>>> diff --git a/devtools/dpdk_meson_check.py b/devtools/dpdk_meson_check.py
>>> new file mode 100755
>>> index 000000000..dc4c714ad
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/devtools/dpdk_meson_check.py
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,106 @@
>>> +#!/usr/bin/env python3
>>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause
>>> +# Copyright(c) 2021 Intel Corporation
>>> +
>>> +'''
>>> +A Python script to run some checks on meson.build files in DPDK
>>> +'''
>>> +
>>> +import sys
>>> +import os
>>> +from os.path import relpath, join
>>> +from argparse import ArgumentParser
>>> +
>>> +VERBOSE = False
>>> +FIX = False
>>> +
>>> +def scan_dir(path):
>>> + '''return meson.build files found in path'''
>>> + for root, dirs, files in os.walk(path):
>>> + if 'meson.build' in files:
>>> + yield(relpath(join(root, 'meson.build')))
>>> +
>>> +
>>> +def check_indentation(filename, contents):
>>> + '''check that a list or files() is correctly indented'''
>>> + infiles = False
>>> + inlist = False
>>> + edit_count = 0
>>> + for lineno in range(len(contents)):
>>
>> for lineno, line in enumerate(contents)
>>
> Yep, that's a good idea. Wasn't aware of enumerate. [Learn something new
> every day, eh? :-)]
>
>> ?
>>
>>> + line = contents[lineno].rstrip()
>>> + if not line:
>>> + continue
>>> + if line.endswith('files('):
>>> + if infiles:
>>> + raise(f'Error parsing {filename}:{lineno}, got "files(" when already parsing files list')
>>> + if inlist:
>>> + print(f'Error parsing {filename}:{lineno}, got "files(" when already parsing array list')
>>> + infiles = True
>>> + indent = 0
>>> + while line[indent] == ' ':
>>> + indent += 1
>>
>> Here and in other places, if this is measuring length of indent, maybe do
>> something like:
>>
>> indent = len(line) - len(line.lstrip(' '))
>>
> Yep, that is cleaner
>
>> ?
>>
>>> + indent += 8 # double indent required
>>> + elif line.endswith('= ['):
>>> + if infiles:
>>> + raise(f'Error parsing {filename}:{lineno}, got start of array when already parsing files list')
>>> + if inlist:
>>> + print(f'Error parsing {filename}:{lineno}, got start of array when already parsing array list')
>>> + inlist = True
>>> + indent = 0
>>> + while line[indent] == ' ':
>>> + indent += 1
>>> + indent += 8 # double indent required
>>> + elif infiles and (line.endswith(')') or line.strip().startswith(')')):
>>
>> It's kinda hard to read with all the endswith/startswith, maybe extract
>> those into a function? e.g. 'elif infiles and is_file_start(line)'
>>
> It is all a bit of a mess, yes, and needs cleaning up - which is why I
> didn't previously send it with the patchset. Splitting into functions is
> something I'll look at.
>
>>> + infiles = False
>>> + continue
>>> + elif inlist and line.endswith(']') or line.strip().startswith(']'):
>>> + inlist = False
>>> + continue
>>> + elif inlist or infiles:
>>> + # skip further subarrays or lists
>>> + if '[' in line or ']' in line:
>>> + continue
>>
>> I guess you could make it recursive instead of giving up? Does this happen
>> with any kind of regularity?
>>
> No, not that much, which is why I haven't explicitly tried to deal with it.
> It would be good to support in future.
>
>>> + if not line.startswith(' ' * indent) or line[indent] == ' ':
>>> + print(f'Error: Incorrect indent at {filename}:{lineno + 1}')
>>> + contents[lineno] = (' ' * indent) + line.strip() + '\n'
>>> + line = contents[lineno].rstrip()
>>> + edit_count += 1
>>> + if not line.endswith(',') and '#' not in line:
>>> + # TODO: support stripping comment and adding ','
>>> + print(f'Error: Missing trailing "," in list at {filename}:{lineno + 1}')
>>> + contents[lineno] = line + ',\n'
>>> + line = contents[lineno].rstrip()
>>
>> What is the point of setting `line` here?
>>
> Because it allows us to make further checks using "line" as we add them
> later.
> The one question is whether it's worth using line as a shortcut for
> contents[lineno] or not. I'd tend to keep it, as it also allows us not to
> worry about the '\n' at the end. Then again, other rework might just change
> the whole script to strip off all the '\n' post-read and add them back
> again pre-write.
>
> Again, further cleanup work.
Well, yes, i got that, it's just that as far as i can tell, the last
"line = ..." is at the end of the iteration, so there's no point in
setting it. Maybe i'm missing something :)
>
>>> + edit_count += 1
>>> + return edit_count
>>> +
>>> +
>>> +def process_file(filename):
>>> + '''run checks on file "filename"'''
>>> + if VERBOSE:
>>> + print(f'Processing {filename}')
>>> + with open(filename) as f:
>>> + contents = f.readlines()
>>
>> I guess meson build files don't get too big so it's OK to read the entire
>> file in memory and then work on it, rather than go line by line...
>>
> This was a deliberate choice when starting the script. For now the script
> only checks indentation and formatting of lists, but ideally in future it
> should check other things, e.g. alphabetical order of lists, or formatting
> of other parts. Rather than checking it all in one go, the script is
> structured so that we can call multiple functions with "contents" each of
> which does the processing without constantly re-reading and rewriting the
> file. Something like sorting a list alphabetically also requires changing
> multiple lines at a time, which is easier to do with lists that when
> streaming input.
Right, gotcha.
>
>>> +
>>> + if check_indentation(filename, contents) > 0 and FIX:
>>> + print(f"Fixing {filename}")
>>> + with open(filename, 'w') as f:
>>> + f.writelines(contents)
>>> +
>>> +
>>> +def main():
>>> + '''parse arguments and then call other functions to do work'''
>>> + global VERBOSE
>>> + global FIX
>>
>> Seems like globals are unnecessary here when you can just pass them into
>> process_file?
>>
> Yes, they can just be passed, but I actually prefer to have those as
> globals rather than having larger parameter lists. It's also possible that
> e.g. verbose, should need to be passed through multiple levels of functions.
> Personal preference, though really.
Static analyzers (e.g. pylint) will complain about it, which is why i
usually avoid those unless really necessary :) For something like
"verbose", sure, one could argue that it's OK to have it as a global,
but FIX is definitely something that could be a parameter, as you don't
seem to use it anywhere other than in process_file(), nor would it seem
likely that it will be used in the future.
>
>>> + parser = ArgumentParser(description='Run syntax checks on DPDK meson.build files')
>>> + parser.add_argument('-d', metavar='directory', default='.', help='Directory to process')
>>> + parser.add_argument('--fix', action='store_true', help='Attempt to fix errors')
>>> + parser.add_argument('-v', action='store_true', help='Verbose output')
>>> + args = parser.parse_args()
>>> +
>>> + VERBOSE = args.v
>>> + FIX = args.fix
>>> + for f in scan_dir(args.d):
>>> + process_file(f)
>>> +
>>> +if __name__ == "__main__":
>>> + main()
>>> --
>>> 2.27.0
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Thanks,
>
> Thanks for the review Anatoly.
>
> /Bruce
>
--
Thanks,
Anatoly