Hi, Sharing my thoughts here for discussion.
=== Source code checking ==== Prior to submission, the submission shall be checked by a source code beatify-er. REQ1: The submission shall not be possible without a local check passing. REQ2: A tool shall be used to check the NuttX coding standard. REQ3: A tool shall be used to check for ASF licence compliance. REQ4: A tool shall be used to check for blank lines at the end of files. DREQ1) An gold standard source code file need to be created to validate tool. Option a) Enhance nxstyle to i. To be complete ii. Support class of errors: errors, warnings, info iii. Support format options that fixes the files iv. At a minimum give compiler output error message that allow rapid fixing of the source in a compiler output aware editor. vi, UE, VC, Eclipse..... Options b) use a mature tool such as Astyle, Uncrutstify, clang format - train it with https://github.com/mikr/whatstyle. Option c) Cascade a combination of a & b to get the last 2% that option a can not. Option d) Make minimal coding standard changes that can be 100% supported by option a.* *) Greg suggested this in the bar at NuttX2019 - caveat it was in the BAR! On 2019/12/17 09:36:28, david.sidr...@gmail.com wrote: > [DISCUSS - NuttX Workflow] > > I am creating this thread to discuss what we as a community would like to > have as NuttX Workflow. I have also created [REQUIREMENTS- NuttX Workflow] > I am asking us to not add discussion to [REQUIREMENTS- NuttX Workflow]. > Please do that here. > > As this discussion evolves we shall create requirements and add them > to the [REQUIREMENTS- > NuttX Workflow] thread. > > Please use [DISCUSS - NuttX Workflow] to propose and discuss the ideas > and experiences > you have to offer. > > Be detailed; give examples, list pros and cons, why you like it and why you > don't. > > Then after the requirements are gathered in one place and discussed here > then can vote on them. > > Thank you. > > David >
