Skip to content

add checks in rust workflow#182

Merged
noahbald merged 7 commits intonoahbald:mainfrom
gwen-lg:ci_add_checks
Nov 25, 2025
Merged

add checks in rust workflow#182
noahbald merged 7 commits intonoahbald:mainfrom
gwen-lg:ci_add_checks

Conversation

@gwen-lg
Copy link
Contributor

@gwen-lg gwen-lg commented Nov 13, 2025

Extend CI covering but add various checks.

Description

Add formatting, spelling, code and docs checks in Rust workflow.
TODO: don't enable build jobs on push on branches other than main.

Motivation and Context

Improve code and history quality

How Has This Been Tested?

It's need some fix than are in another branch to pass all tests
https://github.com/gwen-lg/oxvg/actions/runs/19345327872/job/55344056631

Types of changes

Fixes

  • typos fixes

Features

  • add checks for Toml and Rust code formatting.
  • add check for spelling with typos.
  • add code check with clippy
  • add check of rust documentations.
  • enable check for all push expect branches with name start with wip

Checklist:

  • My code follows the code style of this project.
  • My change requires a change to the documentation.
  • I have updated the documentation accordingly.
  • I have added tests to cover my changes.
  • All new and existing tests passed.

@noahbald
Copy link
Owner

I think fixes to the emitted warnings can be completed in a separate PR

@gwen-lg gwen-lg force-pushed the ci_add_checks branch 2 times, most recently from 13a3f7a to 6fecea0 Compare November 23, 2025 21:15
@gwen-lg gwen-lg marked this pull request as ready for review November 23, 2025 21:23
@gwen-lg gwen-lg force-pushed the ci_add_checks branch 2 times, most recently from e776b53 to 80c2c88 Compare November 24, 2025 21:14
@noahbald
Copy link
Owner

I've just merged #196, would you like to rebase?

@gwen-lg
Copy link
Contributor Author

gwen-lg commented Nov 24, 2025

I've just merged #196, would you like to rebase?

Done. It's possible to do a fast-forward merge, instead of a commit merge ?
It's make more linear history.

And do you prefer to fix the 'report' before integrate this ? Or make the fixes after ?

@noahbald
Copy link
Owner

It's possible to do a fast-forward merge, instead of a commit merge ?

yes, feel free to do however you like

@noahbald
Copy link
Owner

And do you prefer to fix the 'report' before integrate this ?

yes, checks should be non blocking (in contrast to build) so we can fix later

@noahbald noahbald merged commit dfff288 into noahbald:main Nov 25, 2025
24 of 25 checks passed
@gwen-lg
Copy link
Contributor Author

gwen-lg commented Nov 25, 2025

It's possible to do a fast-forward merge, instead of a commit merge ?

yes, feel free to do however you like

I was talking about the integration into main that you just did with an integration commit 😛.

@gwen-lg
Copy link
Contributor Author

gwen-lg commented Nov 25, 2025

And do you prefer to fix the 'report' before integrate this ?

yes, checks should be non blocking (in contrast to build) so we can fix later

After the initial correction phase, I believe that warnings and errors reported by the checks should be fixed before integration, in the same way as build errors.
Minimizing the number of fix commits seems like good practice to me.

@noahbald
Copy link
Owner

Yeah I reckon we’ll want to fix them all. It doesn’t need to block other work until then though

@gwen-lg
Copy link
Contributor Author

gwen-lg commented Nov 25, 2025

I have started some cleanup, my wip work is available in branch https://github.com/gwen-lg/oxvg/tree/wip_improvement

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants