Comprehensive reassessment: Reality check and roadmap to become 'ruff of Fortran'

[krystophny]

User description

Summary

This PR provides a comprehensive reassessment of fluff's actual implementation status and creates a realistic roadmap to achieve our goal of becoming the "ruff of Fortran".

Key Findings

Reality Check

• Actual completion: 10-15% (not the 80%+ claimed in BACKLOG.md)
• 22 of 23 rules are complete stubs returning empty violations
• Test infrastructure is broken - fpm test finds no tests to run
• fortfront integration incomplete - AST traversal/inspection not implemented
• Most functionality is stubbed or contains error stops

Critical Blockers

1. No working test infrastructure (86 test files don't use test-drive)
2. Incomplete fortfront AST integration (traverse, get_node_type, get_children not implemented)
3. Configuration system non-functional (TOML parsing stubbed)
4. All performance and correctness rules are stubs

What This PR Adds

📄 STATUS_REPORT.md

• Comprehensive analysis of all TODOs, stubs, and incomplete implementations
• Truth table comparing claimed vs actual completion
• Detailed breakdown of what works vs what doesn't

📝 Updated BACKLOG.md

• Removed misleading "✅ COMPLETED" claims
• Added Phase 0: Critical Fixes as urgent priority
• Realistic percentage completion for each phase
• Clear task lists for what actually needs to be done

🎯 ACTION_PLAN.md

• 16-week roadmap to production readiness
• Priority matrix for implementation order
• Performance targets matching ruff
• Competitive analysis and success metrics
• Week-by-week implementation plan

Good News

fortfront now has all the APIs we need! The blocker is our integration, not missing features in fortfront. With focused effort, we can achieve production readiness in 3-4 months.

Immediate Next Steps

1. Fix test infrastructure - Convert tests to use test-drive
2. Complete fortfront integration - Implement AST traversal functions
3. Implement first 5 rules using AST - Remove text-based fallbacks
4. Fix configuration system - Implement TOML parsing

Impact

This honest assessment allows us to:

• Set realistic expectations
• Focus on highest-impact work first
• Track real progress vs aspirational goals
• Build credibility through transparency

The path to becoming the "ruff of Fortran" is clear and achievable with dedicated effort.

---

PR Type

Documentation, Other

---

Description

• Comprehensive reassessment revealing actual 10-15% completion status

• Updated BACKLOG.md removing misleading completion claims

• Added STATUS_REPORT.md documenting implementation gaps

• Created ACTION_PLAN.md with 16-week roadmap

---

Diagram Walkthrough

flowchart LR
  A["Current State"] --> B["STATUS_REPORT.md"]
  B --> C["Reality Check"]
  C --> D["BACKLOG.md Update"]
  D --> E["ACTION_PLAN.md"]
  E --> F["16-Week Roadmap"]
  F --> G["Production Ready"]

Loading

File Walkthrough

Relevant files

Documentation

ACTION_PLAN.md 16-week roadmap to become 'ruff of Fortran'                            ACTION_PLAN.md Creates comprehensive 16-week roadmap to production readiness Defines success metrics matching ruff performance targets Provides week-by-week implementation plan with priority matrix Includes competitive analysis and risk mitigation strategies +240/-0  BACKLOG.md Updated backlog with realistic completion status                  BACKLOG.md Removes misleading "✅ COMPLETED" claims from phases Updates completion percentages to reflect actual status Adds Phase 0 for critical fixes as urgent priority Provides realistic task breakdown and truth table +177/-68 STATUS_REPORT.md Comprehensive status analysis revealing implementation gaps STATUS_REPORT.md Documents comprehensive analysis of actual vs claimed completion Reveals 22 of 23 rules are stubs returning empty violations Identifies critical blockers in test infrastructure and AST integration Provides detailed breakdown of what works vs what doesn't +133/-0

---

[qodo-code-review]

CI Feedback 🧐

(Feedback updated until commit e36a478)

A test triggered by this PR failed. Here is an AI-generated analysis of the failure:

Action: Test Suite (macos-latest, 11)

Failed stage: Set up job [❌]

Failure summary: The action failed because it uses a deprecated version of actions/upload-artifact: v3. GitHub has deprecated v3 of the artifact actions and automatically fails requests that use this version.

Relevant error logs: 1: ##[group]Runner Image Provisioner 2: Hosted Compute Agent ... 11: ##[group]Runner Image 12: Image: macos-14-arm64 13: Version: 20250728.1701 14: Included Software: https://github.com/actions/runner-images/blob/macos-14-arm64/20250728.1701/images/macos/macos-14-arm64-Readme.md 15: Image Release: https://github.com/actions/runner-images/releases/tag/macos-14-arm64%2F20250728.1701 16: ##[endgroup] 17: ##[group]GITHUB_TOKEN Permissions 18: Contents: read 19: Metadata: read 20: Packages: read 21: ##[endgroup] 22: Secret source: Actions 23: Prepare workflow directory 24: Prepare all required actions 25: Getting action download info 26: ##[error]This request has been automatically failed because it uses a deprecated version of `actions/upload-artifact: v3`. Learn more: https://github.blog/changelog/2024-04-16-deprecation-notice-v3-of-the-artifact-actions/

[qodo-code-review]

CI Feedback 🧐

A test triggered by this PR failed. Here is an AI-generated analysis of the failure:

Action: Test Suite (ubuntu-latest, 12)

Failed stage: Set up job [❌]

Failure summary: The action failed because it uses a deprecated version of actions/upload-artifact: v3. GitHub has deprecated v3 of the artifact actions and automatically fails requests that use this version.

Relevant error logs: 1: ##[group]Runner Image Provisioner 2: Hosted Compute Agent ... 11: ##[group]Runner Image 12: Image: ubuntu-24.04 13: Version: 20250728.1.0 14: Included Software: https://github.com/actions/runner-images/blob/ubuntu24/20250728.1/images/ubuntu/Ubuntu2404-Readme.md 15: Image Release: https://github.com/actions/runner-images/releases/tag/ubuntu24%2F20250728.1 16: ##[endgroup] 17: ##[group]GITHUB_TOKEN Permissions 18: Contents: read 19: Metadata: read 20: Packages: read 21: ##[endgroup] 22: Secret source: Actions 23: Prepare workflow directory 24: Prepare all required actions 25: Getting action download info 26: ##[error]This request has been automatically failed because it uses a deprecated version of `actions/upload-artifact: v3`. Learn more: https://github.blog/changelog/2024-04-16-deprecation-notice-v3-of-the-artifact-actions/

[qodo-code-review]

PR Reviewer Guide 🔍

Here are some key observations to aid the review process:

⏱️ Estimated effort to review: 2 🔵🔵⚪⚪⚪

🧪 No relevant tests

🔒 No security concerns identified

⚡ Recommended focus areas for review Overly Ambitious The 16-week timeline to achieve "ruff of Fortran" status appears overly optimistic given the current 10-15% completion status. The plan assumes linear progress without accounting for integration complexities, debugging time, or potential roadblocks in the fortfront API integration. ### Week 1-2: Foundation Emergency Surgery #### Day 1-3: Test Infrastructure Revival ```fortran ! Current: No tests run ! Target: 100% test execution with coverage Add test-drive as dependency Convert all 86 test files to test-drive format Create test runner script Add coverage reporting Set up CI to run tests on every commit Day 4-7: fortfront Integration Completion ! Current: AST parsed but not traversable ! Target: Full AST manipulation capability Implement ast_traverse using fortfront's visitor pattern Implement ast_get_node_type with full node type detection Implement ast_get_children for AST navigation Implement ast_get_node_location for precise error reporting Create comprehensive AST utility functions Day 8-10: Configuration System ! Current: TOML parsing stubbed ! Target: Full configuration with defaults Integrate TOML-Fortran library Implement configuration loading Add configuration validation Create default configurations for common use cases Support pyproject.toml style configuration Week 3-4: Core Linting Engine Implement High-Value Rules First Priority order based on user impact: F001: implicit none (✅ already done) F006: unused variables F007: undefined variables F008: missing intent F002: indentation consistency F003: line length F012: naming conventions Implementation template for each rule: subroutine check_rule_fXXX(ctx, node_index, violations) ! 1. Use fortfront visitor to traverse AST ! 2. Pattern match on node types ! 3. Apply semantic analysis from context ! 4. Generate violations with fix suggestions ! 5. Return actionable diagnostics end subroutine Week 5-6: Formatter Implementation AST-Preserving Formatter ! Use fortfront's emit_fortran with custom formatting Implement style-guide based formatting Preserve comments and preprocessor directives Support partial formatting (ranges) Add format-on-save capability Ensure idempotent formatting Week 7-8: Performance Optimization Target Metrics Speed: Process 100K lines in <1 second Memory: <100MB for typical projects Startup: <50ms cold start Optimization Strategies Parallel Processing: Use OpenMP for file-level parallelism Caching: Implement persistent AST cache Incremental Analysis: Only reanalyze changed files Memory Pool: Reuse allocations Profile-Guided Optimization: Use real-world codebases Week 9-10: Developer Experience LSP Server Implement full LSP protocol Real-time diagnostics Code actions for fixes Hover information Go to definition IDE Integration VS Code extension Neovim plugin Emacs package Sublime Text package Week 11-12: Ecosystem Integration Build System Support CMake integration Meson support Make integration fpm native support CI/CD Integration GitHub Actions GitLab CI Jenkins plugin Pre-commit hooks Week 13-14: Advanced Features Performance Rules (P001-P007) Loop optimization detection Array access patterns Memory allocation patterns Vectorization opportunities Cache-friendly code detection Lazy Fortran Support Seamless dialect detection Automatic conversion Mixed-dialect projects Week 15-16: Production Readiness Quality Assurance Test on major Fortran projects (stdlib, LAPACK, PETSc) Performance benchmarks vs competitors Security audit Documentation completion Release Engineering Binary releases for all platforms Package managers (brew, apt, conda) Docker images Automated release pipeline Success Metrics Performance (Must Match Ruff) Metric Current Target Ruff Equivalent 100K lines processing N/A <1s <0.5s Startup time N/A <50ms <20ms Memory usage N/A <100MB <50MB Incremental analysis None <100ms <50ms Feature Parity Checklist 50+ built-in rules Automatic fixing for 90% of violations Configuration compatibility with existing tools Watch mode with instant feedback Editor integration for top 5 editors CI/CD integration for top 5 platforms Adoption Goals 1,000 GitHub stars in 6 months 10+ major projects using fluff 5+ contributors from community Package manager availability Implementation Priority Matrix Impact ↓ Effort → Low Medium High High Fix tests AST integration Core rules Formatter Performance opt Medium Config system TOML parsing LSP server Watch mode IDE plugins Low Documentation Advanced rules Extensibility Risk Mitigation Technical Risks fortfront API gaps: ✅ Already resolved - APIs available Performance bottlenecks: Profile early and often Memory usage: Use arena allocators like fortfront Adoption Risks Legacy code compatibility: Support Fortran 77 onwards Build system variety: Support all major systems Change resistance: Provide migration guides Competitive Analysis Current Fortran Linters fprettify: Slow, limited rules FORD: Documentation only flint: Abandoned fluff Advantages Speed: 100x faster through AST caching Completeness: Linting + formatting + LSP Modern: Supports latest Fortran standards Unique: Lazy Fortran support Call to Action Immediate Next Steps (This Week) Fix test infrastructure - BLOCKER Complete fortfront AST integration - BLOCKER Implement first 5 AST-based rules Remove all stub implementations Create benchmark suite Community Engagement Blog post: "Building the Ruff of Fortran" Conference talk proposal for FortranCon Reddit/HN launch when MVP ready YouTube demo videos Conclusion fluff can become the "ruff of Fortran" in 16 weeks with focused execution. The path is clear: Fix foundations (Weeks 1-2) Build core features (Weeks 3-8) Optimize performance (Weeks 9-10) Polish UX (Weeks 11-14) Launch (Weeks 15-16) The Fortran community desperately needs modern tooling. fluff can fill this gap by delivering ruff-level performance and usability to scientific computing. </details> <details><summary><a href='https://github.com/lazy-fortran/fluff/pull/2/files#diff-7f701df4f6df68d27ece71f732a0866a2add4a78e4e0c3d42849780820f65530R9-R193'><strong>Inconsistent Metrics</strong></a> The completion percentages and task breakdowns show inconsistencies between different sections. Some tasks are marked as urgent in Phase 0 but then repeated in later phases, and the percentage calculations don't align with the detailed task lists provided. </summary> ```markdown ## Current Status: Early Prototype (10-15% Complete) ### Critical Issues to Address 1. **Test Infrastructure Broken**: No tests run with `fpm test` 2. **fortfront Integration Incomplete**: AST traversal/inspection not implemented 3. **22 of 23 Rules are Stubs**: Only F001 has text-based implementation 4. **Core Functionality Missing**: Configuration, formatting, LSP mostly stubbed ## Phase 0: Critical Fixes 🚨 URGENT ### Task 0.1: Fix Test Infrastructure - [ ] Convert all 86 test files to use test-drive - [ ] Enable `fpm test` to actually run tests - [ ] Add test-drive dependency to fpm.toml - [ ] Verify tests execute and report results ### Task 0.2: Complete fortfront AST Integration - [ ] Implement ast_traverse using fortfront's traverse_depth - [ ] Implement ast_get_node_type using fortfront's node introspection - [ ] Implement ast_get_children using fortfront's get_children - [ ] Implement ast_get_node_location using fortfront's location info - [ ] Remove all "AST parsing required - no fallbacks!" error stops ### Task 0.3: Fix Configuration System - [ ] Implement TOML parsing in fluff_config.f90 - [ ] Complete path normalization in fluff_common.f90 - [ ] Validate configuration loading works end-to-end ## Phase 1: Foundation 🔄 IN PROGRESS (40% Complete) ### Summary - ✅ Project infrastructure and module structure - ✅ Basic fortfront integration (parsing only) - ❌ **AST traversal and inspection not implemented** - ❌ **Configuration system not functional** ### Remaining Tasks - [ ] Task 1.1: Complete AST wrapper implementation - [ ] Task 1.2: Implement TOML configuration parsing - [ ] Task 1.3: Fix path utilities - [ ] Task 1.4: Add comprehensive unit tests ## Phase 2: Linting Engine 🔄 IN PROGRESS (5% Complete) ### Summary - ✅ Rule framework structure exists - ❌ **Only 1 of 23 rules implemented (F001 with text fallback)** - ❌ **All other rules return empty violations** - ❌ **No AST-based rule checking** ### Remaining Tasks - [ ] Task 2.1: Implement F002-F005 (style rules) using AST - [ ] Task 2.2: Implement F006-F010 (quality rules) using AST - [ ] Task 2.3: Implement F011-F015 (convention rules) using AST - [ ] Task 2.4: Implement P001-P007 (performance rules) using AST - [ ] Task 2.5: Implement C001 (correctness rule) using AST - [ ] Task 2.6: Add fix suggestions for each rule - [ ] Task 2.7: Performance optimize rule execution ## Phase 3: Code Formatting ❌ NOT STARTED (Structure Only) ### Summary - ✅ Formatter module structure exists - ❌ **No actual formatting implementation** - ❌ **Multiple error stops for AST requirements** ### Required Tasks - [ ] Task 3.1: Implement format_file functionality - [ ] Task 3.2: Implement range-based formatting - [ ] Task 3.3: Integrate style guides with formatter - [ ] Task 3.4: Add format validation - [ ] Task 3.5: Implement format fixes ## Phase 4: Developer Experience ❌ MOSTLY STUBS (10% Complete) ### Summary - ✅ Module structures exist - ❌ **LSP server uses hardcoded demo responses** - ❌ **File watching is placeholder** - ❌ **Output formats incomplete (no SARIF)** ### Required Tasks - [ ] Task 4.1: Implement real LSP message handling - [ ] Task 4.2: Complete file watching system - [ ] Task 4.3: Implement SARIF output format - [ ] Task 4.4: Fix diagnostic sorting - [ ] Task 4.5: Add incremental analysis - [ ] Task 4.6: Implement caching properly ## Phase 5: Advanced Features ❌ NOT STARTED ### Epic 5.1: Advanced Static Analysis - ❌ Dependency analysis has 25+ unimplemented test functions - ❌ Dead code detection contains error stops - ❌ No working implementation ### Epic 5.2: Performance Analysis - ❌ Not started ### Epic 5.3: Extensibility - ❌ Not started ## Realistic Roadmap to "Ruff of Fortran" ### Sprint 1: Foundation Fixes (Weeks 1-2) 1. Fix test infrastructure (enable fpm test) 2. Complete fortfront AST integration 3. Fix configuration system 4. Verify all modules compile without stubs ### Sprint 2: Core Rules Implementation (Weeks 3-5) 1. Implement F002-F005 (indentation, line length, whitespace) 2. Implement F006-F007 (unused/undefined variables) 3. Implement F008 (missing intent) 4. Test and validate against real Fortran code ### Sprint 3: Advanced Rules (Weeks 6-8) 1. Implement F009-F015 (remaining style rules) 2. Implement P001-P007 (performance rules) 3. Add fix suggestions for all rules 4. Performance optimization ### Sprint 4: Formatter Implementation (Weeks 9-11) 1. Complete AST-based formatting 2. Integrate with style guides 3. Add format validation 4. Test on large codebases ### Sprint 5: Developer Tools (Weeks 12-14) 1. Fix LSP server implementation 2. Complete file watching 3. Add all output formats 4. Implement caching ### Sprint 6: Polish and Release (Weeks 15-16) 1. Performance optimization 2. Documentation 3. Integration tests 4. Release preparation ## Success Metrics (Revised) ### Immediate Goals (Sprint 1) - [ ] `fpm test` runs and passes - [ ] AST traversal works - [ ] Configuration loads from TOML ### Short-term Goals (Sprints 2-3) - [ ] 10+ rules working with AST - [ ] No text-based fallbacks - [ ] Fix suggestions functional ### Medium-term Goals (Sprints 4-5) - [ ] Formatter working on real code - [ ] LSP server responds to requests - [ ] Performance: <1s for 1000 files ### Long-term Goals (Sprint 6) - [ ] All 23 rules implemented - [ ] Feature parity with basic ruff functionality - [ ] Production-ready for real projects ## Truth Table: Claimed vs Reality | Component | Claimed Status | Actual Status | Gap | |-----------|---------------|---------------|-----| | Foundation | ✅ COMPLETED | 🔄 40% Complete | 60% | | Linting Engine | ✅ COMPLETED | 🔄 5% Complete | 95% | | Code Formatting | ✅ COMPLETED | ❌ 0% Complete | 100% | | Developer Experience | ✅ COMPLETED | 🔄 10% Complete | 90% | | Advanced Features | 🔄 IN PROGRESS | ❌ 0% Complete | 100% | ## Next Immediate Actions 1. **TODAY**: Fix test infrastructure - make tests runnable 2. **THIS WEEK**: Complete fortfront AST integration 3. **NEXT WEEK**: Implement first 5 rules using AST 4. **ONGOING**: Remove all stub implementations ## Notes - Previous completion claims were aspirational, not factual - fortfront now has all needed APIs - integration is the blocker - With focused effort, production-ready in 3-4 months is achievable - Priority is fixing foundations before adding features

[qodo-code-review]

PR Code Suggestions ✨

Explore these optional code suggestions:

Category	Suggestion	Impact
General	Set realistic phased performance targets The performance targets are extremely ambitious for a 16-week timeline, especially given the current 10-15% completion status. These targets may be unrealistic and could lead to technical debt or shortcuts that compromise code quality. ACTION_PLAN.md [161-167] -### Performance (Must Match Ruff) -| Metric | Current | Target | Ruff Equivalent | -|--------|---------|--------|-----------------| -| 100K lines processing | N/A | <1s | <0.5s | -| Startup time | N/A | <50ms | <20ms | -| Memory usage | N/A | <100MB | <50MB | -| Incremental analysis | None | <100ms | <50ms | +### Performance (Phased Targets) +| Metric | Current | Phase 1 Target | Final Target | Ruff Equivalent | +|--------|---------|----------------|--------------|-----------------| +| 100K lines processing | N/A | <10s | <2s | <0.5s | +| Startup time | N/A | <200ms | <100ms | <20ms | +| Memory usage | N/A | <500MB | <200MB | <50MB | +| Incremental analysis | None | <1s | <200ms | <50ms | Apply / Chat Suggestion importance[1-10]: 7 __ Why: This is a valuable suggestion that aligns with the PR's goal of setting realistic expectations by proposing phased performance targets, which are more achievable than the original ambitious goals.	Medium
	Reorder tasks and add validation The task order may cause issues since adding test-drive dependency should happen before conversion attempts. Also missing is verification that existing tests actually work before conversion, which could waste effort converting broken tests. BACKLOG.md [17-23] -## Phase 0: Critical Fixes 🚨 URGENT +### Task 0.1: Fix Test Infrastructure +- [ ] Audit existing 86 test files to identify working vs broken tests +- [ ] Add test-drive dependency to fmp.toml +- [ ] Create test conversion template and validate on 2-3 sample tests +- [ ] Convert working test files to use test-drive format +- [ ] Enable `fpm test` to actually run converted tests +- [ ] Verify all converted tests execute and report results +- [ ] Document any tests that couldn't be converted -### Task 0.1: Fix Test Infrastructure -- [ ] Convert all 86 test files to use test-drive -- [ ] Enable `fpm test` to actually run tests -- [ ] Add test-drive dependency to fpm.toml -- [ ] Verify tests execute and report results - Apply / Chat Suggestion importance[1-10]: 7 __ Why: The suggestion improves the task plan by reordering steps logically and adding crucial validation and auditing tasks, which increases the likelihood of a successful test infrastructure fix.	Medium
	Add validation and rollback planning The test infrastructure plan lacks specificity about the conversion process and doesn't address potential compatibility issues. Consider adding validation steps to ensure converted tests maintain their original behavior and adding a rollback plan if conversion fails. ACTION_PLAN.md [19-28] #### Day 1-3: Test Infrastructure Revival ```fortran ! Current: No tests run ! Target: 100% test execution with coverage -- [ ] Add test-drive as dependency -- [ ] Convert all 86 test files to test-drive format -- [ ] Create test runner script -- [ ] Add coverage reporting +- [ ] Add test-drive as dependency to fpm.toml +- [ ] Audit existing 86 test files for conversion compatibility +- [ ] Convert test files to test-drive format with validation +- [ ] Verify converted tests produce identical results +- [ ] Create test runner script with error handling +- [ ] Add coverage reporting with baseline metrics Set up CI to run tests on every commit +- [ ] Document rollback procedure if conversion fails - [ ] **Apply / Chat** <!-- /improve --apply_suggestion=2 --> <details><summary>Suggestion importance[1-10]: 6</summary> __ Why: The suggestion correctly identifies that the test migration plan lacks detail and adds valuable steps for validation and risk mitigation, making the plan more robust and realistic. </details></details></td><td align=center>Low </td></tr> <tr><td align="center" colspan="2"> - [ ] More <!-- /improve --more_suggestions=true --> </td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

[krystophny]

Superseded by PR #4 which includes the complete reassessment plus working AST rule implementations. BACKLOG.md has been updated in main with accurate status.