[Gluster-devel] Clang-Formatter for GlusterFS.

[Amar Tumballi]

On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 10:00 AM, Ravishankar N <ravishankar at redhat.com>
wrote:

>
> On 09/13/2018 03:34 PM, Niels de Vos wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 02:25:22PM +0530, Ravishankar N wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>> What rules does clang impose on function/argument wrapping and
>>> alignment? I
>>> somehow found the new code wrapping to be random and highly unreadable.
>>> An
>>> example of 'before and after' the clang format patches went in:
>>> https://paste.fedoraproject.org/paste/dC~aRCzYgliqucGYIzxPrQ Wondering
>>> if
>>> this is just me or is it some problem of spurious clang fixes.
>>>
>> I agree that this example looks pretty ugly. Looking at random changes
>> to the code where I am most active does not show this awkward
>> formatting.
>>
>
> So one of my recent patches is failing smoke and clang-format is insisting
> [https://build.gluster.org/job/clang-format/22/console] on wrapping
> function arguments in an unsightly manner. Should I resend my patch with
> this new style of wrapping ?
>
>
I would say yes! We will get better, by changing options of clang-format
once we get better options there. But for now, just following the option
suggested by clang-format job is good IMO.

-Amar


> Regards,
> Ravi
>
>
>
>
>> However, I was expecting to see enforcing of the
>> single-line-if-statements like this (and while/for/.. loops):
>>
>>      if (need_to_do_it) {
>>           do_it();
>>      }
>>
>> instead of
>>
>>      if (need_to_do_it)
>>           do_it();
>>
>> At least the conversion did not take care of this. But, maybe I'm wrong
>> as I can not find the discussion in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1564149
>> about this. Does someone remember what was decided in the end?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Niels
>>
>
>


-- 
Amar Tumballi (amarts)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-devel/attachments/20180917/9c072e38/attachment-0001.html>