On 09/28, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Thu, 10 Aug 2017, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 8 Aug 2017, Brandon Williams wrote:
> >
> > > On 08/08, Stefan Beller wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 5:05 AM, Johannes Schindelin
> > > > <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, 7 Aug 2017, Brandon Williams wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Add a '.clang-format' file which outlines the git project's
> > > > >> coding style. This can be used with clang-format to auto-format
> > > > >> .c and .h files to conform with git's style.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Signed-off-by: Brandon Williams <bmwill@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > >> ---
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I'm sure this sort of thing comes up every so often on the list
> > > > >> but back at git-merge I mentioned how it would be nice to not
> > > > >> have to worry about style when reviewing patches as that is
> > > > >> something mechanical and best left to a machine (for the most
> > > > >> part).
> > > > >
> > > > > Amen.
> > > > >
> > > > > If I never have to see a review mentioning an unwrapped line, I am quite
> > > > > certain I will be quite content.
> > > >
> > > > As a thought experiment I'd like to propose to take it one step further:
> > > >
> > > > If the code was formatted perfectly in one style such that a
> > > > formatter for this style would not produce changes when rerun
> > > > again on the code, then each individual could have a clean/smudge
> > > > filter to work in their preferred style, and only the exchange and
> > > > storage of code is in a mutual agreed style. If the mutually
> > > > agreed style is close to what I prefer, I don't have to use
> > > > clean/smudge filters.
> > > >
> > > > Additionally to this patch, we'd want to either put a note into
> > > > SubmittingPatches or Documentation/gitworkflows.txt to hint at
> > > > how to use this formatting to just affect the patch that is currently
> > > > worked on or rather a pre-commit hook?
> > >
> > > I'm sure both of these things will probably happen if we decide to make
> > > use of a code-formatter. This RFC is really just trying to ask the
> > > question: "Is this something we want to entertain doing?"
> > > My response would be 'Yes' but there's many other opinions to consider
> > > first :)
> >
> > I am sure that something even better will be possible: a Continuous
> > "Integration" that fixes the coding style automatically by using
> > `filter-branch` (avoiding the merge conflicts that would arise if `rebase
> > -i` was used).
>
> FWIW I just set this up in my VSTS account, with the following build step
> (performed in one of the Hosted Linux agents, i.e. I do not even have to
> have a VM dedicated to the task):
>
> -- snip --
> die () {
> echo "$*" >&2
> exit 1
> }
>
> head=$(git rev-parse HEAD) ||
> die "Could not determine HEAD"
>
> test -n "$BUILD_SOURCEBRANCHNAME" ||
> die "Need a source branch name to work with"
>
> base=$(git merge-base origin/core/master HEAD) &&
> count=$(git rev-list --count $base..) &&
> test 0 -lt $count ||
> die "Could not determine commits to clean up (count: $count)"
>
> test -f .clang-format ||
> git show origin/core/pu/.clang-format >.clang-format ||
> die "Need a .clang-format"
>
> sudo add-apt-repository 'deb http://apt.llvm.org/xenial/
> llvm-toolchain-xenial main' &&
> sudo apt-get update &&
> sudo apt-get --allow-unauthenticated -y install clang-format-6.0 ||
> die "Could not install clang-format 6.0"
>
> git filter-branch -f --tree-filter \
> 'git diff HEAD^.. |
> clang-format-diff-6.0 -p 1 -i &&
>
> git update-index --refresh --ignore-submodules &&
> git diff-files --quiet --ignore-submodules ||
> git commit --amend -C HEAD' $base.. ||
> die "Could not rewrite branch"
>
> if test "$head" = "$(git rev-parse HEAD)"
> then
> echo "No changes in $BUILD_SOURCEBRANCHNAME introduced by clang-format" >&2
> else
> git push vsts +HEAD:refs/heads/clang-format/"$BUILD_SOURCEBRANCHNAME" ||
> die "Could not push clang-format/$BUILD_SOURCEBRANCHNAME"
> echo "Clean branch pushed as clang-format/$BUILD_SOURCEBRANCHNAME" >&2
> exit 123
> fi
> -- snap --
>
> A couple of notes for the interested:
>
> - you can easily set this up for yourself, as Visual Studio Team Services
> is free for small teams up to five people (including single developer
> "teams"): https://www.visualstudio.com/team-services/, and of course you
> can back it by your own git.git fork on GitHub, no need to host the code
> in VSTS.
>
> Disclaimer: I work closely with the developers behind Visual Studio Team
> Services, and I am a genuine fan, yet I understand if anybody thinks of
> this as advertising the service, so this will be the only time I mention
> this.
>
> - the script assumes that there is a `core/master` tracking upstream Git's
> master branch, then reformats the commits in the current branch that are
> not also reachable from core/master.
>
> - The push credentials to push the result at the end are of course not
> included in the script, they need to be provided separately.
>
> - the exit code 123 when the branch needed to be rewritten indicates to
> any consumer that the build "failed". The reason is that I want to
> integrate this into a system where I open a PR in my own account, which
> triggers the build automatically contingent on the base branch being
> core/master, and if the build fails, the PR gets "blocked", providing a
> very easy way to see that there is still work to be done.
>
> - for the moment, I do not push back to the original branch, even if I
> could. The reason is that already my first test produced a dubious
> result, see below.
>
> I am reasonably happy with the way this build job works right now,
> especially given that I do not have to mess up any other setup I have just
> to get the bleeding edge version of Clang.
>
> Now for the dubious result.
>
> I took my most recent contribution, the lazyload one (which you can easily
> get yourself by fetching the lazyload-v2 tag from
> https://github.com/dscho/git), because it was pretty self-contained and
> small, only one patch. With the current .clang-format as per git.git's
> master (or for that matter, pu, as they are identical), the output `git
> show | clang-format-diff-6.0 -p 1` ends in this hunk:
>
> -- snip --
> @@ -43,8 +43,7 @@
> if (!proc->initialized) {
> HANDLE hnd;
> proc->initialized = 1;
> - hnd = LoadLibraryExA(proc->dll, NULL,
> - LOAD_LIBRARY_SEARCH_SYSTEM32);
> + hnd = LoadLibraryExA(proc->dll, NULL, LOAD_LIBRARY_SEARCH_SYSTEM32);
> if (hnd)
> proc->pfunction = GetProcAddress(hnd, proc->function);
> }
> -- snap --
>
> (tabs intentionally converted to spaces, to show the extent of the damage
> clearly)
>
> In other words, despite the column limit of 80 (with a tab width of 8
> spaces), it takes a perfectly well formatted pair of lines and combines
> them into a single line that now has 84 columns. Absolutely not what we
> want.
>
> Even worse: if I replace the column limit of 80 by 79, like so:
>
> -- snip --
> diff --git a/.clang-format b/.clang-format
> index 3ede2628d2d..9f686c1ed5a 100644
> --- a/.clang-format
> +++ b/.clang-format
> @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ UseTab: Always
> TabWidth: 8
> IndentWidth: 8
> ContinuationIndentWidth: 8
> -ColumnLimit: 80
> +ColumnLimit: 79
>
> # C Language specifics
> Language: Cpp
> -- snap --
>
> then that hunk vanishes and clang-format leaves the LoadLibraryEx() lines
> alone!
>
> Even stranger, if I revert to 80 columns, copy the offending line above
> the conditional block so that the indentation level is different (based on
> a hunch that this may have something to do with clang's understanding of
> tab widths) and extend the last parameter artificially, it still breaks at
> exactly 84 columns, i.e. if I make the line 84 columns long, it keeps it
> as one line, if I extend it to 85 columns, it breaks the line into two.
>
> In fact, the same holds true even with no indentation at all: if I turn
> this line into a static variable assignment outside of the function, it
> again breaks the line as soon as I extend it to 85 columns.
>
> Then I repeated the exercise with clang-format-6.0 instead of
> clang-format-diff-6.0, and the finding still holds. 85 columns, despite
> the explicit ColumnLimit: 80 in .clang-format.
>
> I then tried to format a file containing only the line "int i123, j123;"
> with various values for ColumnLimit, and could not get it to break at all.
>
> Any insights?
I think I know what is happening here, and this is something that we
will need to tweak based on more people beginning to use the formatting
tool.
In the .clang-format file there are a number of parameters at the end:
# Penalties
# This decides what order things should be done if a line is too long
PenaltyBreakAssignment: 100
PenaltyBreakBeforeFirstCallParameter: 100
PenaltyBreakComment: 100
PenaltyBreakFirstLessLess: 0
PenaltyBreakString: 100
PenaltyExcessCharacter: 5
PenaltyReturnTypeOnItsOwnLine: 0
These penalties are used to determine which line breaking events should be
done based on some programmable weight (or penalty). I thing that if we
bump up the penalty on excess characters to something higher than '5'
(which i think is quite low) then it may format more like you were
expecting.
--
Brandon Williams
