[clang] Do less advertising for unresolved issues in cxx_dr_status.html
#78836
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -129,19 +129,25 @@ out_file.write('''\ | |
|
|
||
| latest_release = 17 | ||
|
|
||
| class AvailabilityError(RuntimeError): | ||
| pass | ||
|
|
||
| availability_error_occurred = False | ||
|
|
||
| def availability(issue): | ||
| status = status_map.get(issue, 'unknown') | ||
|
|
||
| unresolved_status = '' | ||
| proposed_resolution = '' | ||
| unresolved_status_match = re.search(r' (open|drafting|review)', status) | ||
| if unresolved_status_match: | ||
| unresolved_status = unresolved_status_match.group(1) | ||
| proposed_resolution_match = re.search(r' (open|drafting|review) (\d{4}-\d{2}(?:-\d{2})?|P\d{4}R\d+)$', status) | ||
| if proposed_resolution_match is None: | ||
| raise AvailabilityError('Issue {}: \'{}\' status should be followed by a paper number (P1234R5) or proposed resolution in YYYY-MM-DD format'.format(dr.issue, unresolved_status)) | ||
| proposed_resolution = proposed_resolution_match.group(2) | ||
| status = status[:-1-len(proposed_resolution)] | ||
| status = status[:-1-len(unresolved_status)] | ||
|
|
||
| avail_suffix = '' | ||
| if status.endswith(' c++11'): | ||
|
|
@@ -159,21 +165,37 @@ def availability(issue): | |
| if status == 'unknown': | ||
| avail = 'Unknown' | ||
| avail_style = ' class="unknown"' | ||
| elif re.match(r'^[0-9]+\.?[0-9]*', status): | ||
| if not proposed_resolution: | ||
| avail = 'Clang %s' % status | ||
| if float(status) > latest_release: | ||
| avail_style = ' class="unreleased"' | ||
| else: | ||
| avail_style = ' class="full"' | ||
| else: | ||
| avail = 'Not Resolved*' | ||
| avail_style = f' title="Clang {status} implements {proposed_resolution} resolution"' | ||
| elif status == 'yes': | ||
| if not proposed_resolution: | ||
| avail = 'Yes' | ||
| avail_style = ' class="full"' | ||
| else: | ||
| avail = 'Not Resolved*' | ||
| avail_style = f' title="Clang implements {proposed_resolution} resolution"' | ||
| elif status == 'partial': | ||
| if not proposed_resolution: | ||
| avail = 'Partial' | ||
| avail_style = ' class="partial"' | ||
| else: | ||
| avail = 'Not Resolved*' | ||
| avail_style = f' title="Clang partially implements {proposed_resolution} resolution"' | ||
| elif status == 'no': | ||
| if not proposed_resolution: | ||
| avail = 'No' | ||
| avail_style = ' class="none"' | ||
| else: | ||
| avail = 'Not Resolved*' | ||
| avail_style = f' title="Clang does not implement {proposed_resolution} resolution"' | ||
|
Comment on lines
+193
to
+198
There was a problem hiding this comment. In the no case, I would leave it unknown / no comment... that we don't do something is not useful information for users. WDYT? There was a problem hiding this comment. I don't see why we don't want to report this, if we report that some unresolved issues are available. For instance, I find it useful to mention that we test proposed resolution for 2335, and decided it's not available. There was a problem hiding this comment. I tend to agree; if we're telling users "there's some drafting and we do what the drafting said as of XXX", then there's similar value in telling users "there's some drafting and we do not do what the drafting said as of XXX" (for example, as the issue is resolved, it tells us that we can convert it into a No instead of an Unknown). There was a problem hiding this comment. I don't agree (because telling users we don;t do something does not tell them what we do), but I will bow to whatever decision @AaronBallman takes. There was a problem hiding this comment. I think we should leave it. I agree that it doesn't tell users what we're actually doing, but the point here is more for a user who reads the draft wording and says "Clang isn't doing what that says, is that a bug?" without really realizing that "drafting" status may mean we don't want to work on the issue until a final decision has been reached. If we explicitly say "we don't do what the current drafting says", it at least tells the user "we're aware of the issue, don't expect us to do what the current drafting says". |
||
| elif status == 'na': | ||
| avail = 'N/A' | ||
| avail_style = ' class="na"' | ||
|
|
@@ -200,7 +222,7 @@ def availability(issue): | |
| avail = 'Duplicate of <a href="#%s">%s</a>' % (dup, dup) | ||
| _, avail_style, _ = availability(dup) | ||
| else: | ||
| raise AvailabilityError('Unknown status %s for issue %s' % (status, dr.issue)) | ||
| return (avail + avail_suffix, avail_style, unresolved_status) | ||
|
|
||
| count = {} | ||
|
|
@@ -217,20 +239,36 @@ for dr in drs: | |
|
|
||
| elif dr.status in ('open', 'drafting', 'review'): | ||
| row_style = ' class="open"' | ||
| try: | ||
| avail, avail_style, unresolved_status = availability(dr.issue) | ||
| except AvailabilityError as e: | ||
| availability_error_occurred = True | ||
| print(e.args[0]) | ||
| continue | ||
|
|
||
| if avail == 'Unknown': | ||
| avail = 'Not resolved' | ||
| avail_style = '' | ||
| else: | ||
| if unresolved_status != dr.status: | ||
| availability_error_occurred = True | ||
| print("Issue %s is marked '%s', which differs from CWG index status '%s'" \ | ||
| % (dr.issue, unresolved_status, dr.status)) | ||
| continue | ||
| else: | ||
| row_style = '' | ||
| try: | ||
| avail, avail_style, unresolved_status = availability(dr.issue) | ||
| except AvailabilityError as e: | ||
| availability_error_occurred = True | ||
| print(e.args[0]) | ||
| continue | ||
|
|
||
| if unresolved_status: | ||
| availability_error_occurred = True | ||
| print("Issue %s is marked '%s', even though it is resolved in CWG index" \ | ||
| % (dr.issue, unresolved_status)) | ||
| continue | ||
|
|
||
| if not avail.startswith('Sup') and not avail.startswith('Dup'): | ||
| count[avail] = count.get(avail, 0) + 1 | ||
|
|
@@ -243,6 +281,9 @@ for dr in drs: | |
| <td%s align="center">%s</td> | ||
| </tr>''' % (row_style, dr.issue, dr.issue, dr.issue, dr.status, dr.title, avail_style, avail)) | ||
|
|
||
| if availability_error_occurred: | ||
| exit(1) | ||
|
|
||
| for status, num in sorted(count.items()): | ||
| print("%s: %s" % (status, num), file=sys.stderr) | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Does this case happen?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We don't have examples at the moment, but I think it's possible to only partially implement a proposed resolution in the same way one can partially implement an approved resolution:
// dr1234: partial drafting 2024-02-13.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm fine keeping it on the assumption it might be used in the future, but I'm also fine stripping it out on the assumption that it's easy enough to add support for once we have an actual need for it.