[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[bug#35790] [PATCH] scripts: lint: Handle warnings with a record type.
From: |
Ludovic Courtès |
Subject: |
[bug#35790] [PATCH] scripts: lint: Handle warnings with a record type. |
Date: |
Tue, 21 May 2019 16:41:53 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.2 (gnu/linux) |
Hello!
Christopher Baines <address@hidden> skribis:
> Rather than emiting warnings directly to a port, have the checkers return the
> warning or warnings.
>
> This makes it easier to use the warnings in different ways, for example,
> loading the data in to a database, as you can work with the <lint-warning>
> records directly, rather than having to parse the output to determine the
> package and location.
Yay!
> + <lint-warning>
As a rule of thumb, it’s best to not export the record type descriptor
(RTD) because then anything could happen. In this case, I think the
tests would be just as readable if we used ‘lint-warning-message’ &
co. instead of matching on the record.
WDYT?
> +(define* (make-warning package message
> + #:key field location)
> + (make-lint-warning
> + package
> + message
In practice MESSAGE is already translated. I think it would be more
flexible if it were not; ‘lint-warning-message’ would always return the
English message, and it’d be up to the user to call ‘gettext’ on it,
like we do for package descriptions.
To achieve this, you’d need a little trick so that ‘xgettext’ can still
extract the messages, like:
(define-syntax-rule make-warning
(syntax-rule (G_)
((_ package (G_ message) rest ...)
(%make-warning package message rest ...))))
where ‘%make-warning’ is the procedure you define above.
Then you need an explicit call to ‘G_’ at the point where messages are
displayed.
Does that make sense?
> +(define (append-warnings . args)
> + (fold (lambda (arg warnings)
> + (cond
> + ((list? arg)
> + (append warnings
> + (filter lint-warning?
> + arg)))
> + ((lint-warning? arg)
> + (append warnings
> + (list arg)))
> + (else warnings)))
> + '()
> + args))
I always feel that we should have procedures that operate on lists of
anything, like ‘append’, and thus ‘append-warnings’ looks like an
anti-pattern to me.
What about simply ensuring that every checker returns a list of
<lint-warning>s? That way, we wouldn’t have to do such things, I think.
That’s all!
Thanks,
Ludo’.