Yeah, I think improving the script would be great. I'm not actually an expert on how it works internally, but I think David Levin is. It's easy for the bot to pass a flag to the script if that would be helpful. In general, I think we should give it a try and iterate to remove the biggest pain points.
Thanks! Adam On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Chris Jerdonek <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Adam Barth <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Chris Jerdonek >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Sat, Nov 28, 2009, Adam Barth wrote: >>>> Hopefully, the script will improve over time, but it will >>>> never be perfect. >>> >>> Can you elaborate on this? For example, are you saying there is a >>> basic reason that the script will always have bugs? Without knowing >>> too much about the script, it seems like it wouldn't be too hard to at >>> least make the false negatives go away. Or are you simply saying that >>> the guidelines and script will never fully capture what we mean by >>> "correct style"? >> >> Does this mean you're volunteering to remove all the false positives >> and false negatives? :) > > I was hoping to work on the script eventually, which is partly why I > asked for elaboration. > > All that I meant above is that one could potentially disable (for the > bot) the style tests that report false violations, or else reduce > their confidence score. That way, if the style bot flags a patch, it > is guaranteed to be meaningful without looking at the details of the > report. This can only be done, though, if the problems with the > script are not so basic that they affect most or many of the tests. > > (The reverse is not as straightforward, though. It does not seem as > easy to change the script -- in a useful way -- so that if it reports > that a patch has met the guidelines, then the patch really meets the > guidelines.) > >> One basic reason the script isn't perfect is that it's doesn't have a >> full C++ / Objective-C++ parser. > > If we could go this route, would we prefer it? > > --Chris > _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
