On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 11:59:01AM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
On Mon, 2019-09-23 at 10:17 +0200, Pavel Hrdina wrote:
On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 09:22:38AM +0200, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote:
One last things here (thanks, Pavel, for pointing this out), I'd prefer the 'syntax' suite being called 'syntax-check' just because people are already used to the 'syntax-check' name.
So, please, would you mind changing it as well?
I don't mind changing it if we agree on the naming, I'll have one last argument for the shorter and easier to type name, coping it from the comment on gitlab:
To me it feels redundant to have the `check` as part of the suit label as you already know that you are running test suit so the check is somehow implied. Consistency is a nice thing if it makes sense, but we are completely changing the workflow so I don't see any reason to pick longer and redundant name just for consistency reasons.
Based on that I still prefer using simply `syntax`, let's see of others have some opinion about it.
For what it's worth, I also prefer 'syntax': the -check suffix is useful for make because it highlights that you're verifying some property of the program, and also clearly ties
make check make syntax-check
together. In the case of Meson, the fact that you're verifying something is explicit in the name of the ninja target, and also
ninja test --suite unit ninja test --suite syntax
are already very obviously connected. Using 'syntax-check' for the latter would, if anything, make the relationship unbalanced: why didn't we call the former 'unit-check' then?
How about calling the suite "style" rather than "syntax" since I think that better reflects what it is actually doing. It is coding style / guidelines checks. Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|