1280893 - [tracking] Implement checks for Fluent messages

Status: NEW

(Localization Infrastructure and Tools :: compare-locales, enhancement)

Description

[Axel Hecht [:Pike]]

On top of the mere file-format support for l20n from bug 1280891, we also need some l20n-specific checks.

This might turn into a tracker of the individual checks. For now, we block bug gecko-l10n, but that might be something to just do for individual bugs.

stas, one question I already have is if we know anything yet about en-US-specific traits?

Comment 1

[Staś Małolepszy :stas]

Traits can have namespaces which can help here.  We could define a list of namespaces known to compare-locales, e.g. "html", "xul", "dom" or "attr".  Traits in other namespaces or without a namespace should be ignored in the comparison.  Right now, the syntax for separating the namespace from the trait's name is "/" although I'm still thinking about possibly changing it to ":".  This shouldn't matter here because the parser and the AST will look the same in either case.

foo =
  [title] en-US specific title
  [html/title] Title to put in HTML

For now we've used "html" as the moniker for all DOM attributes, including XUL.  Do you think that's okay, or will we end up with a "xul" namespace as well?

Comment 2

[Axel Hecht [:Pike]]

Mass change dependency tree for bug 1279002 into a whiteboard keyword.

Comment 3

[Axel Hecht [:Pike]]

I think the best way forward here is to just go:

namespaced: needs a match
no namespace: can differ

Comment 4

[Staś Małolepszy :stas]

I tagged comment 1 and comment 3 as obsolete as they referred to the old syntax of L20n which used to have "traits".  Fluent has attributes instead which are always part of the public interface of the message they're defined on.  Attribute should always be checked by compare-locales.

Comment 5

[Staś Małolepszy :stas]

Bug 1199670 added the following checks:

  - missing and obsolete values (error)
  - missing and obsolete attributes (error)
  - duplicate attributes (warning)

Let's use this bug as a tracker for adding more checks.  Please file new bugs blocking this one when working on new checks.

Comment 6

[Axel Hecht [:Pike]]

Hooking up some existing bugs we filed as follow-ups.

Re Section tests, we could for example warn if the sections of the original file don't exist if there are entities from those sections present in the localizations.

Also, duplicate sections? Not sure how bad that'd be.

Comment 7

[Staś Małolepszy :stas]

Thanks for linking the other bugs.

Sections in Fluent are really just glorified comments. As such I don't think it should be forbidden to have duplicate sections.  In fact it might even be useful for grouping things like buttons, actions, shortcuts etc.