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

CLI flag --check-only #264

Open
bnichell opened this issue Mar 5, 2024 · 2 comments
Open

CLI flag --check-only #264

bnichell opened this issue Mar 5, 2024 · 2 comments

Comments

@bnichell
Copy link

bnichell commented Mar 5, 2024

Currently the CLI tool only allows to change the source files directly based on the given rules.
For code review purposes I propose a --check-only CLI flag, that only reports the findings without changing the checked files.

@jmgrassau
Copy link
Member

Hi Benedikt,

nice idea – what kind of reporting of findings would you expect? Currently, there are options for summarized output …

    --stats             Write statistical summary to standard output.
    --usedrules         Write list of used rules to standard output.

… but I wonder whether you would also want a list of concrete findings, e.g. "[<source file><TAB>]<line number><TAB><to-be-used rule>"? This would then be a bit like the output of ATC (and possibly get longer than the actual code ;-)

15     Remove space before commas and period
32     Simplify a chain with one element
36     Convert upper and lower case
36     Use CamelCase for known CDS names
42     Align declarations
...

Kind regards,
Jörg-Michael

@bnichell
Copy link
Author

bnichell commented Apr 4, 2024

Hi Jörg-Michael,

the flag requested here should only have an effect on whether or not the analyzed files are being changed. With the flag active, the checked files should only be analyzed and not be changed (read-only). The result should be returned to stdout in both cases (not sure if an additional flag makes sense to log the result additionally to a file, as this could be easily achieved by redirecting the output).
Combined with the alternative output formats requested in #263, the result output could be easily parsed, and the formatting state could be easily checked in e.g. CI without actually changing any files.

Cheers,
Benedikt

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants