Exclude files or directories in cpplint.py

[ahcorde]

This PR is related to this other #234

ament_cmake_cpplint includes all the files in the package, with this option we can exclude some files or directories.

Signed-off-by: ahcorde ahcorde@gmail.com

[dirk-thomas]

The exclude logic needs to be fixed as pointed out multiple times.

The exclude logic has been fixed

[dirk-thomas]

This check us only necessary since the previous check from line 123 isn't effective since the exclude logic is applied afterwards. How about moving the logic into get_file_groups() - which I think would be the most efficient approach since it even avoid crawling / collecting files under an excluded directory. I would expect that would also avoid the need to check all parents.

Nitpick: no parenthesis around Python conditions. The Pythonic way to write this condition would be: if files_check.

[ahcorde]

Logic moved to get_file_groups() 3b9b453

[dirk-thomas]

The exclude logic can already be applied to the dirnames variable to filter them out early (without the need to recurse into them). That will also simplify the check later which doesn't have to consider parents.

[ahcorde]

moved to dirnames 3b9b453

[dirk-thomas]

I don't see where the code filters dirnames based on the excludes?

[dirk-thomas]

dirnames only contains the names of the subdirectories of dirpath. As such the condition not in excludes is incorrect again - for the same reasons as the previous comments.

[dirk-thomas]

This condition still doesn't make sense.

Please write a unit test which tests a variety of cases to validate the implementation against.

[ahcorde]

humm, why not? the excludes argument might contains a filename

[dirk-thomas]

I don't think an exclude of bar should match a file foo/bar. Instead the exclude should state foo/bar explicitly. Otherwise how do I exclude the file bar but not the file foo/bar?

[ahcorde]

should I need to include the test?

[dirk-thomas]

You don't have to include the test in this PR but as mentioned before writing one will help you to check the logic. Especially the part to consider an example file system structure and excludes and what the filtered result is expected to be.

[ahcorde]

@dirk-thomas I created a gist with a test: https://gist.github.com/ahcorde/bcc558aedad8560cfa46c4b5de366f32

This is the last commit 6db3ae3

[dirk-thomas]

I am not sure how to use the gist. get_file_groups() seems to always return an empty dict?

Just from reading over the logic I would expect that a file include/test/cache_unittest.cpp would be incorrectly skipped even though only test/cache_unittest.cpp is specified in the excludes.

Also I still don't see why is_file_or_directory_to_exclude() should needs any logic like check_path_parents().

[JWhitleyWork]

@ahcorde Any update on this?

[mm318]

I agree with Dirk on #238 (comment)

I don't think an exclude of bar should match a file foo/bar. Instead the exclude should state foo/bar explicitly. Otherwise how do I exclude the file bar but not the file foo/bar?

If the desire is to match bar at any level, then the expression should be something like **/bar (basically glob rules). Python already has a glob library as part of its standard libraries (https://docs.python.org/2.7/library/glob.html), we can just leverage that.

[mm318]

The question now is what's the behavior already built into ament_cppcheck at

ament_lint/ament_cppcheck/ament_cppcheck/main.py

Line 150 in 44da06b

cmd.extend(['--suppress=*:', exclude])

as matching that would be more important than implementing glob rules.

EDIT: The current behavior of ament_cppcheck --exclude is wrong (see #234 (comment)), so ament_cpplint should not mimic its behavior.

[audrow]

@ahcorde, what do you think we should do here? Should we close this PR?

[ahcorde]

yes, we can close this PR