On Wed, Nov 08, 2023 at 12:43:23 -0800, Michael D Kinney wrote:
> REF: https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4593
>
> If a package only has reviewers and no maintainers, then also
> return the <default> maintainers.
>
> Update get_maintainers() to return maintainers, reviews, and
> lists separately instead of a single merged list to allow this
> module to be used by other scripts and distinguish types.
>
> Sort the list of output addresses alphabetically.
>
> Fix logic bug where maintainers was incorrectly added to lists.
>
> Cc: Rebecca Cran <rebe...@bsdio.com>
> Cc: Liming Gao <gaolim...@byosoft.com.cn>
> Cc: Bob Feng <bob.c.f...@intel.com>
> Cc: Yuwei Chen <yuwei.c...@intel.com>
> Cc: Leif Lindholm <quic_llind...@quicinc.com>
> Signed-off-by: Michael D Kinney <michael.d.kin...@intel.com>
> ---
> BaseTools/Scripts/GetMaintainer.py | 42 ++++++++++++++++++------------
> 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/BaseTools/Scripts/GetMaintainer.py
> b/BaseTools/Scripts/GetMaintainer.py
> index d1e042c0afe4..b33546b10f21 100644
> --- a/BaseTools/Scripts/GetMaintainer.py
> +++ b/BaseTools/Scripts/GetMaintainer.py
> @@ -76,6 +76,7 @@ def get_section_maintainers(path, section):
> """Returns a list with email addresses to any M: and R: entries
> matching the provided path in the provided section."""
> maintainers = []
> + reviewers = []
> lists = []
> nowarn_status = ['Supported', 'Maintained']
>
> @@ -83,12 +84,18 @@ def get_section_maintainers(path, section):
> for status in section['status']:
> if status not in nowarn_status:
> print('WARNING: Maintained status for "%s" is \'%s\'!' %
> (path, status))
> - for address in section['maintainer'], section['reviewer']:
> + for address in section['maintainer']:
> # Convert to list if necessary
> if isinstance(address, list):
> maintainers += address
> else:
> - lists += [address]
> + maintainers += [address]
That's a bugfix. Ought to be separate.
(Cleverly hidden by concatentaing the results when we didn't care
about keeping them separate other than for seeing if we'd found any
humans.)
> + for address in section['reviewer']:
> + # Convert to list if necessary
> + if isinstance(address, list):
> + reviewers += address
> + else:
> + reviewers += [address]
> for address in section['list']:
> # Convert to list if necessary
> if isinstance(address, list):
> @@ -96,32 +103,34 @@ def get_section_maintainers(path, section):
> else:
> lists += [address]
>
> - return maintainers, lists
> + return maintainers, reviewers, lists
>
> def get_maintainers(path, sections, level=0):
> """For 'path', iterates over all sections, returning maintainers
> for matching ones."""
> maintainers = []
> + reviewers = []
> lists = []
> for section in sections:
> - tmp_maint, tmp_lists = get_section_maintainers(path, section)
> - if tmp_maint:
> - maintainers += tmp_maint
> - if tmp_lists:
> - lists += tmp_lists
> + tmp_maint, tmp_review, tmp_lists = get_section_maintainers(path,
> section)
> + maintainers += tmp_maint
> + reviewers += tmp_review
> + lists += tmp_lists
Minor niggle at coding style cleanup as part of functional rework.
>
> if not maintainers:
> # If no match found, look for match for (nonexistent) file
> # REPO.working_dir/<default>
> print('"%s": no maintainers found, looking for default' % path)
> if level == 0:
> - maintainers = get_maintainers('<default>', sections, level=level
> + 1)
> + maintainers, tmp_review, tmp_lists =
> get_maintainers('<default>', sections, level=level + 1)
> + reviewers += tmp_review
> + lists += tmp_lists
> else:
> print("No <default> maintainers set for project.")
> if not maintainers:
> return None
>
> - return maintainers + lists
Apart from the niggles mentioned above, I agree that this is a
reasonable way of adding the required functionality without completely
rewriting the existing code. (It does make me feel there must be a
better way of writing it than I did, though.)
> + return maintainers, reviewers, lists
>
> def parse_maintainers_line(line):
> """Parse one line of Maintainers.txt, returning any match group and its
> key."""
> @@ -182,15 +191,16 @@ if __name__ == '__main__':
> else:
> FILES = get_modified_files(REPO, ARGS)
>
> - ADDRESSES = []
> -
> + # Accumulate a sorted list of addresses
> + ADDRESSES = set([])
> for file in FILES:
> print(file)
> - addresslist = get_maintainers(file, SECTIONS)
> - if addresslist:
> - ADDRESSES += addresslist
> + maintainers, reviewers, lists = get_maintainers(file, SECTIONS)
> + ADDRESSES |= set(maintainers + reviewers + lists)
> + ADDRESSES = list(ADDRESSES)
> + ADDRESSES.sort()
>
> - for address in list(OrderedDict.fromkeys(ADDRESSES)):
> + for address in ADDRESSES:
But the above doesn't seem to have any impact on the generated output
at all. So I guess this is to enable the github work to utilise
get_maintainers() directly while maintaining the separation of
maintainer/reviewer/list?
It feels to me like that change would be more clear as a separate
commit from the one that breaks out reviewers from maintainers.
I don't have a strong preference for the ordering.
And it would probably also be less fragile (w.r.t. future edits) if
the end result returned a dict instead of three lists.
/
Leif
> if '<' in address and '>' in address:
> address = address.split('>', 1)[0] + '>'
> print(' %s' % address)
> --
> 2.40.1.windows.1
>
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#111036): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/111036
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/102472591/21656
Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe:
https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/leave/9847357/21656/1706620634/xyzzy
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
