Create automated test to check for string conflicts with cross-channel localization
Categories
(Developer Infrastructure :: Lint and Formatting, enhancement, P2)
Tracking
(firefox68 fixed)
Tracking | Status | |
---|---|---|
firefox68 | --- | fixed |
People
(Reporter: Pike, Assigned: Pike)
References
(Blocks 1 open bug)
Details
Attachments
(4 files, 4 obsolete files)
![]() |
Assignee | |
Updated•8 years ago
|
Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
![]() |
Assignee | |
Updated•8 years ago
|
![]() |
Assignee | |
Updated•8 years ago
|
![]() |
Assignee | |
Comment 3•8 years ago
|
||
![]() |
Assignee | |
Comment 4•8 years ago
|
||
![]() |
Assignee | |
Comment 5•8 years ago
|
||
![]() |
Assignee | |
Comment 6•8 years ago
|
||
Comment 7•8 years ago
|
||
Comment 8•8 years ago
|
||
mozreview-review |
Comment 9•8 years ago
|
||
Updated•8 years ago
|
![]() |
Assignee | |
Comment 10•8 years ago
|
||
mozreview-review |
Updated•8 years ago
|
![]() |
Assignee | |
Comment 11•7 years ago
|
||
Heads up, I'm resurrecting this bug from the dead. Also, moving from mozreview to phabricator, and I'll volunteer flod to be our internal reviewer.
I think I managed to make sense of the comments in mozreview that were reflected here.
Notable differences, as we won't have an interdiff:
- I dropped the check for
l10n_configs
completely. As Andrew suggested to throw an exception, might as well be aKeyError
. I didn't check other entries from the l10n.yml, too. - I added a check that there's no missing entries in
include
in l10n.yml - Added support-files to rerun the linter on updates to compare-locales
- Generally better comments
- Since back then, compare-locales has a
--validate
option, mimic what that is doing in detail. - Added an exception logic
Flod, as we talked about this: This should actually check for conflicting strings in beta ;-)
A bit more detail on the exception logic:
The idea is that we allow strings to change if they're explicitly white-listed in l10n.yml, by file name and ID. The whitelist should be pruned once the changed string is in gecko-strings. I'm not particularly fond of this, but I also don't have a better idea. Maybe Andrew?
![]() |
Assignee | |
Comment 12•7 years ago
|
||
![]() |
Assignee | |
Comment 13•7 years ago
|
||
Depends on D20465
![]() |
Assignee | |
Comment 14•7 years ago
|
||
Depends on D20465
Updated•7 years ago
|
![]() |
Assignee | |
Comment 15•7 years ago
|
||
Updated•7 years ago
|
Updated•7 years ago
|
Comment 16•7 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 9046344 [details]
Bug 1353680, add lintargs to lint setup, r=ahal
Revision D21010 was moved to bug 1530352. Setting attachment 9046344 [details] to obsolete.
![]() |
Assignee | |
Comment 17•7 years ago
|
||
Andrew, I started addressing your comments, and then got stuck on the setup
part.
Turns out that setup
runs for all linters available, so in the case where you just change python files, we still call the eslint setup. That's probably OK as long as setup is dead-fast, but the l10n setup isn't that fast.
I'm wondering how to mitigate that.
I could refactor the setup part a bit, and only call setup for linters that are actually gonna get called. Maybe only do that if --setup
isn't passed in?
Or, add a separate hook that's more like pre-run
. Also done in a single step before parallelizing out into the actual linter jobs, but only run for the linters that are run. That would leave the setup behavior as it is right now.
What do you think?
Comment 18•7 years ago
•
|
||
I think only calling the setup
functions of linters that are running is very reasonable (and even desirable), but it's also adding scope bloat. So unless you're motivated to make that change, it might just be best to just move that logic back to the start of the lint
function (I'll leave this up to you). I know I originally said to move it to setup
, sorry for the churn :(.
![]() |
Assignee | |
Comment 19•6 years ago
|
||
![]() |
Assignee | |
Comment 20•6 years ago
|
||
Depends on D20465
Updated•6 years ago
|
Comment 21•6 years ago
|
||
![]() |
||
Comment 22•6 years ago
|
||
bugherder |
Comment 23•6 years ago
|
||
Great work, bravo :)
Updated•3 years ago
|
Description
•