> I'd like review for: > 6740590 Comments check can miss junk preceding bug synopsis > > Webrev: > http://cr.opensolaris.org/~richlowe/6740590
I looked at the change to Comments.py; I'll look at the tooltest changes on Tuesday. The change looks fine. I also reviewed Comments.py as a whole and noticed a few nits: - In comchk(), "blanks" could conceivably overflow. Since we don't actually do anything with the final count, it'd be better to just set it to 1 (or True) when we find a blank/empty line. - We're using "^" and "$" as anchors, which can break if a multiline string ever sneaks in. "\A" and "\Z" would be more robust, I think. - It'd be helpful to have a comment around line 124 saying what the r'(\([^)]+\))?$' clause is for. (I figured it out, but it took a minute.) I verified that all the active ARCs have names that match [A-Z][A-Z]ARC. There was a SARC, but it doesn't have any cases after 2006. We might need to revisit this check sometime in the future. I think it's safe to assume that there won't be more than 1000 ARC cases in a year, but we might need to revisit that assumption in a couple years. In 2005-2007 there were less than 800 cases per year. 2008 looks to be about the same, I think. I reviewed all the regular expressions, and I think they're all appropriately anchored (modulo the issue I noted above about which set of anchors to use). mike
