Hi, Max!

Thanks for your comments!

See my answers below. Updated patch was force-pushed.

 

On 7/17/23 19:10, Maxim Kokryashkin via Tarantool-patches wrote:

Hi, Sergey!

Please consider my comments below.

 

 

From: Sergey Bronnikov <sergeyb@tarantool.org>

In Tarantool we use our own fork of checkpatch [2] with additional check
types. It's logical to use it in a LuaJIT development. We don't need

Typo: s/in a/in/

Fixed.

check tags in commit messages like NO_DOC, NO_CHANGELOG, NO_TEST and
others, so to be able to customize command-line options Github Action, provided
by checkpatch repository [3], was added to the repository.

Typo: s/by checkpatch/by the checkpatch/

Fixed.

See documentation for used checkpatch in [4].

Typo: s/documentation/the documentation/

Typo: s/for used/for the/

Fixed. Fixed.

Patch introduce new CMake targets: LuaJIT-checkpatch, that checks

Typo: s/introduce/introduces/

Fixed.

patches on top of master branch using script checkpatch.pl [1], and

Typo: s/on top of/on top of the/

Fixed.

target check, that combines LuaJIT-luacheck and LuaJIT-checkpatch.

1. https://docs.kernel.org/dev-tools/checkpatch.html
2. https://github.com/tarantool/checkpatch
3. https://github.com/tarantool/checkpatch/blob/master/.github/actions/checkpatch/action.yml
4. https://github.com/tarantool/checkpatch/blob/master/doc/checkpatch.rst

Nit: It is kinda strange to see link [1] going after the link [4] in the commit message.

I think, it generally looks clearer, when they are ordered, but that’s a matter of taste.

Feel free to ignore.

Rewrote description and fixed order of references.

--- test/CMakeLists.txt | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+)

diff --git a/test/CMakeLists.txt b/test/CMakeLists.txt
index 47296a22..ccbad035 100644
--- a/test/CMakeLists.txt
+++ b/test/CMakeLists.txt
@@ -42,6 +42,39 @@ else()
   )
 endif()
 
+find_program(CHECKPATCH checkpatch.pl
+ HINTS ${PROJECT_SOURCE_DIR}/checkpatch)
+if(CHECKPATCH)

I don’t really like that `MASTER_BRANCH` name is hardcoded. I think

it’s possible to implement it similarly to how it’s done in the `tarantool/checkpatch`

github action[1] with revision range. Or, at least, it is for sure possible to obtain

the master branch name dynamically.

In LuaJIT we have a single branch for merging new patches - tarantool/master.

Why do you need to redefine master branch?

+ set(MASTER_BRANCH "tarantool/master")
+ add_custom_target(${PROJECT_NAME}-checkpatch)
+ add_custom_command(TARGET ${PROJECT_NAME}-checkpatch
+ COMMENT "Running checkpatch"
+ COMMAND
+ ${CHECKPATCH}
+ --codespell
+ --color=always
+ --git ${MASTER_BRANCH}..HEAD
+ --ignore COMMIT_LOG_LONG_LINE
+ # Requires at least two lines in commit message and this
+ # is annoying.
+ --ignore COMMIT_MESSAGE
+ --ignore NO_CHANGELOG
+ --ignore NO_DOC
+ --ignore NO_TEST
+ --show-types
+ WORKING_DIRECTORY ${PROJECT_SOURCE_DIR}
+ )
+else()
+ add_custom_target(${PROJECT_NAME}-checkpatch)

It seems like the target definition can be moved out of the `if` statement

just before it.

Done. As well as definition of MASTER_BRANCH variable.

+ add_custom_command(TARGET ${PROJECT_NAME}-checkpatch
+ COMMENT "`checkpatch.pl' is not found, so ${PROJECT_NAME}-checkpatch target is dummy"
+ )
+endif()
+
+add_custom_target(check
+ DEPENDS ${PROJECT_NAME}-checkpatch ${PROJECT_NAME}-luacheck
+)
+

As I have already said offline, I think we should include the `check` target as a dependency to the `test` target, just like it is currently done for the luacheck. It is much more convenient for local testing that way.

Fixed.

 set(LUAJIT_TEST_COMMAND "${LUAJIT_TEST_BINARY} -e dofile[[${LUAJIT_TEST_INIT}]]")
 separate_arguments(LUAJIT_TEST_COMMAND)
 
--
2.34.1

[1]: https://github.com/tarantool/checkpatch/blob/master/.github/actions/checkpatch/action.yml

--
Best regards,

Maxim Kokryashkin