Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Suggest a faster tidy. #11201

Merged
merged 1 commit into from May 16, 2016
Merged

Suggest a faster tidy. #11201

merged 1 commit into from May 16, 2016

Conversation

@jdm
Copy link
Member

jdm commented May 16, 2016

Thank you for contributing to Servo! Please replace each [ ] by [X] when the step is complete, and replace __ with appropriate data:

  • ./mach build -d does not report any errors
  • ./mach test-tidy does not report any errors
  • These changes fix #__ (github issue number if applicable).

Either:

  • There are tests for these changes OR
  • These changes do not require tests because documentation update.

Pull requests that do not address these steps are welcome, but they will require additional verification as part of the review process.


This change is Reviewable

@KiChjang
Copy link
Member

KiChjang commented May 16, 2016

So I have some reservations about this, because some PRs do add WPT tests, and sometimes people did not know how to use ./mach create-wpt to generate them. Running ./mach test-tidy would at least catch the missing <link>s on the new WPT test file, which would otherwise be generated by create-wpt.

@Ms2ger
Copy link
Contributor

Ms2ger commented May 16, 2016

@KiChjang I'm afraid you don't have a clue what you're talking about. --faster has included the wpt lint since #9394.

@bors-servo r+

@bors-servo
Copy link
Contributor

bors-servo commented May 16, 2016

📌 Commit 27d7d94 has been approved by Ms2ger

@KiChjang
Copy link
Member

KiChjang commented May 16, 2016

@bors-servo r-

In which case, we should just do away the --faster option and make it the default, and add in something like --all-wpt when we want to check tidy rules against all WPT files.

@jdm
Copy link
Member Author

jdm commented May 16, 2016

@KiChjang This is directly addressing a complaint that @nox had about the current template. I'd rather file your suggestion as a separate issue, since it involves modifying various CI files as well as the implementation.

@KiChjang
Copy link
Member

KiChjang commented May 16, 2016

@bors-servo r+

Fine by me.

@bors-servo
Copy link
Contributor

bors-servo commented May 16, 2016

📌 Commit 27d7d94 has been approved by KiChjang

@highfive highfive assigned KiChjang and unassigned Ms2ger May 16, 2016
@bors-servo
Copy link
Contributor

bors-servo commented May 16, 2016

Testing commit 27d7d94 with merge 87fd387...

bors-servo added a commit that referenced this pull request May 16, 2016
Suggest a faster tidy.

Thank you for contributing to Servo! Please replace each `[ ]` by `[X]` when the step is complete, and replace `__` with appropriate data:
- [X] `./mach build -d` does not report any errors
- [X] `./mach test-tidy` does not report any errors
- [ ] These changes fix #__ (github issue number if applicable).

Either:
- [ ] There are tests for these changes OR
- [X] These changes do not require tests because documentation update.

Pull requests that do not address these steps are welcome, but they will require additional verification as part of the review process.

<!-- Reviewable:start -->
---
This change is [<img src="https://reviewable.io/review_button.svg" height="35" align="absmiddle" alt="Reviewable"/>](https://reviewable.io/reviews/servo/servo/11201)
<!-- Reviewable:end -->
@bors-servo
Copy link
Contributor

bors-servo commented May 16, 2016

@bors-servo bors-servo merged commit 27d7d94 into master May 16, 2016
1 of 2 checks passed
1 of 2 checks passed
continuous-integration/appveyor/pr AppVeyor was unable to build non-mergeable pull request
Details
homu Test successful
Details
@wafflespeanut wafflespeanut deleted the jdm-patch-1 branch May 17, 2016
@wafflespeanut
Copy link
Member

wafflespeanut commented May 17, 2016

heh, given #11217, we're gonna revert this soon :)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked issues

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

6 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.