Conversation
|
The new values are correctly taken into account. Next question: do these values make sense ? |
|
If the coding conventions are changed, this should be documented as well ;-). |
Are we really needing 120 here? Why not just set he maximum line length to 100, period? |
|
I'm also for a single max. Having a warning line would trigger warning messages from Vera++ on every PR that changes a file with lines over the warning limit, even if the changes are not related to the lines causing the warning (right?) |
|
This also would make a mod of the coding conventions unnecessary. The optional 80 char max could still be upheld manually. |
I pushed b5c7d9d to adapt the values in the coding conventions. |
|
Hmm, sorry I misunderstood the comments above. So we agree on a single value of 100 characters per line ? |
b5c7d9d to
65489f1
Compare
As the absolute maximum, yes. I think however we can keep the 80 char limit as someone an individual developer can look out for or configure their IDE to ;-). |
65489f1 to
dc0b638
Compare
|
I'm fine with it! |
|
@aabadie please remove the |
dc0b638 to
8f2b375
Compare
|
Another side effect of this PR will be to limit the output of the vera++ check when run on master. |
I actually thought that was your main motivation 😀 |
Let's say it was not the only one :) |
|
Mhh for some reason the 80 chars warning still shows up. |
see #15813 |
Contribution description
The vera++ warning annotation about the 80 character max line length is cluttering the review process on certain files.
This PR is increasing the warning line length to 100 and max line length to 120.
Testing procedure
The bogus commit should report annotations about maximum line length.
Issues/PRs references
Should improve the situation in PR like #15718 (see https://github.com/RIOT-OS/RIOT/pull/15718/files#diff-1e6a82d8739f75dd4cddea9ecc25505ed042f3670ee5646dfc0c97dba2881662)