Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Have CI automatically check XEP-0001 conformance #1223

Closed
guusdk opened this issue Oct 13, 2022 · 4 comments
Closed

Have CI automatically check XEP-0001 conformance #1223

guusdk opened this issue Oct 13, 2022 · 4 comments
Labels
Editor Tooling Issue relates to process/tooling

Comments

@guusdk
Copy link
Contributor

guusdk commented Oct 13, 2022

we should have a CI job which validates that changed or added files are conformant; e.g. that protoxeps come with the correct <number> and <status> values.

@ge0rg
Copy link
Contributor

ge0rg commented Oct 25, 2022

It would be great to collect a list of specific criteria to check for, so that it can be more easily converted into an implementation. I'll try to make a start, and would extend it with everything that's posted later on. I'm annotating with "warning" for something that CI should complain about but not block a merge, and "error" for things that must not be accepted.

Root folder xep-*.xml:

  • /xep/header/number equals number in filename (error)
  • There is a new /xep/header/revision block in changed files, containing a version, date, initials and remark (warning)

Inbox proto-XEPs:

  • /xep/header/number is "xxxx" or "XXXX" (warning)
  • /xep/header/status is "ProtoXEP" (warning)

Both types of XEP files:

  • /xep/header/type is one of:
    • "Standards Track", "Informational", "Historical", "Humorous", "Procedural" (part of XEP-0001), "SIG Proposal", "SIG Formation" (only to be accepted in existing files) (error)
  • /xep/header/status is one of:
    • "Active", "Deferred", "Deprecated", "Experimental", "Final", "Obsolete", "Proposed", "Rejected", "Retracted" (new and existing files), "Draft" (only to be accepted in existing files) (error)

@Echolon
Copy link
Member

Echolon commented Oct 25, 2022

Thank you Georg for the support!

  • Estimated workload: 12 h
  • Assumption: Knowledge of Github Automation
  • Further clarification: Specification of the required validation rules

@mwild1 mwild1 added the Editor Tooling Issue relates to process/tooling label Nov 4, 2022
@mwild1
Copy link
Contributor

mwild1 commented Nov 4, 2022

For this issue I think the deliverable just needs to be a script that accepts (at a minimum) a XEP .xml file, and returns a formatted list of issues (if any). I don't think CI stuff should be in scope (therefore the person working on this does not need any knowledge of Github automation).

@horazont
Copy link
Contributor

horazont commented Nov 5, 2022

I reformulated this with a clearer specification in #1235 and #1240, in order to have a more clean issue log. Re-open this if you disagree or comment over there or have anything to add.

@horazont horazont closed this as not planned Won't fix, can't repro, duplicate, stale Nov 5, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Editor Tooling Issue relates to process/tooling
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants