[webkit-dev] style-queue entering beta

[Adam Barth]

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
<chris.jerdonek at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Adam Barth <abarth at webkit.org> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Chris Jerdonek
>> <chris.jerdonek at gmail.com> 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
>