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

doc: harmonize version pattern in YAML comments #35575

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Oct 13, 2020

Conversation

aduh95
Copy link
Contributor

@aduh95 aduh95 commented Oct 9, 2020

I've let two linter errors slipped through in #35454.

Refs: nodejs/remark-preset-lint-node#139

Checklist
  • make -j4 test (UNIX), or vcbuild test (Windows) passes
  • documentation is changed or added
  • commit message follows commit guidelines

@nodejs-github-bot nodejs-github-bot added the doc Issues and PRs related to the documentations. label Oct 9, 2020
@Trott
Copy link
Member

Trott commented Oct 9, 2020

Fast-track? (So we can land the linting rule for this stuff so @aduh95 doesn't have to open a PR like this ever three days?)

@aduh95 aduh95 added the fast-track PRs that do not need to wait for 48 hours to land. label Oct 9, 2020
@aduh95
Copy link
Contributor Author

aduh95 commented Oct 10, 2020

I've also included some changes so we can check PR-URLs as well – and I did catch some more typos.

@aduh95 aduh95 requested a review from Trott October 10, 2020 11:06
@Trott
Copy link
Member

Trott commented Oct 10, 2020

Probably less of a sure-thing fast-track candidate with those additional changes, but I'm still good to fast-track it if someone else agrees.

Copy link
Member

@nschonni nschonni left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Not sure I follow why some sections are getting disabled with the second commit

doc/api/http2.md Outdated
@@ -2059,13 +2059,17 @@ The socket timeout logic is set up on connection, so changing this
value only affects new connections to the server, not any existing connections.

### `http2.createServer(options[, onRequestHandler])`

<!--lint disable nodejs-yaml-comments -->
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why disable the in this block?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That’s because one item in the changes list has been introduced without a PR on node repo for security reason (3948830). This is (will be) picked up by the linter as invalid (see https://github.com/nodejs/remark-preset-lint-node/runs/1235246278?check_suite_focus=true)

Ideally the linter should be aware of that pattern, but I figured disabling linter on the few comments it happens would be good enough on a first iteration.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is the pattern that if the pr-url is for nodejs-private/node-private, then it should have a matching commit on frontmatter?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

OK, I agree that’s a cleaner solution. I didn’t take the time to implement that on the linter PR, I’ll try to do that later today.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

No worries, just talking the problem out loud 😄

  1. Should the commit be a URL as well?
  2. Should the commit be disallowed on non-private pr-urls?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should the commit be a URL as well?

Before I started working on refactoring YAML comments, there were 14 occurrences of commit IDs:

  • 13 were commit: sha
  • 1 was pr-url: https://github.com/nodejs/node/commit/sha

I'd stick with the majority here, as we did on the previous PR, unless someone objects.

Should the commit be disallowed on non-private pr-urls?

Yes, the goal is consistency, let's avoid it where we can. My plan is to have it allowed only on changes introduced on Node.js 0.x (because sometimes changes were made directly on master), and on security releases.

@@ -2143,6 +2143,9 @@ The `crypto._toBuf()` function was not designed to be used by modules outside
of Node.js core and was removed.

### DEP0115: `crypto.prng()`, `crypto.pseudoRandomBytes()`, `crypto.rng()`

<!--lint disable nodejs-yaml-comments -->
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should the dual pr-url be allowed in the future, or better to ignore the one-off?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@aduh95 aduh95 Oct 10, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think that's a one off, we can revisite later if it becomes more common.

@aduh95 aduh95 added author ready PRs that have at least one approval, no pending requests for changes, and a CI started. and removed fast-track PRs that do not need to wait for 48 hours to land. labels Oct 11, 2020
@aduh95
Copy link
Contributor Author

aduh95 commented Oct 11, 2020

Removed the fast-track as now the PR is open for more than 48 hours anyway.

@bcoe bcoe mentioned this pull request Oct 12, 2020
3 tasks
@bcoe
Copy link
Contributor

bcoe commented Oct 12, 2020

Just want to explicitly say:

I'm comfortable with fast tracking this

And, I'm excited to see nodejs/remark-preset-lint-node#139 land 👍

@nodejs-github-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

@bcoe bcoe added the fast-track PRs that do not need to wait for 48 hours to land. label Oct 12, 2020
@bcoe
Copy link
Contributor

bcoe commented Oct 12, 2020

@cjihrig @Trott @lpinca, could I bother folks for an explicit 👍 for a fast-track?

Note: looks like we're about to hit the 72 hour weekend guideline any ways, but better to be explicit.

Refs: nodejs/remark-preset-lint-node#139

PR-URL: nodejs#35575
Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Ben Coe <bencoe@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
@aduh95
Copy link
Contributor Author

aduh95 commented Oct 13, 2020

Landed in 0aa2c5b

@aduh95 aduh95 merged commit 0aa2c5b into nodejs:master Oct 13, 2020
@Trott
Copy link
Member

Trott commented Oct 13, 2020

Note: looks like we're about to hit the 72 hour weekend guideline any ways, but better to be explicit.

FYI, and I know it's hard to keep track and that it's not relevant for this PR anymore, but good news: There is no 72 hour weekend rule anymore. It's 48 hours no matter when you open the PR. Please don't use that fact to game the system. :-D

MylesBorins pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 14, 2020
Refs: nodejs/remark-preset-lint-node#139

PR-URL: #35575
Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Ben Coe <bencoe@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
@MylesBorins MylesBorins mentioned this pull request Oct 14, 2020
joesepi pushed a commit to joesepi/node that referenced this pull request Jan 8, 2021
Refs: nodejs/remark-preset-lint-node#139

PR-URL: nodejs#35575
Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Ben Coe <bencoe@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
@aduh95 aduh95 deleted the harmonize-yaml-comments branch July 16, 2022 16:31
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
author ready PRs that have at least one approval, no pending requests for changes, and a CI started. doc Issues and PRs related to the documentations. fast-track PRs that do not need to wait for 48 hours to land.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

7 participants