Spoke with Morbus a few weeks back, and as Coder Tough Love has not been actively maintained for quite some time (and with no plans to update it), I'd recommend we remove the related dependency from PIFR_Coder and take the coder_tough_love argument out of the coder tests listing. (Also, the coder tough love standards may be considered a little too strict to include them in advisory coder reviews.)

CommentFileSizeAuthor
#4 pifr-remove-coder-tough-love-1358940-4.patch2.68 KBNROTC_Webmaster

Comments

xjm’s picture

xjm
she/her
Primary language English
commented

Hmm, actually, I think the coder tough love standards are catching a lot of things that I know are missing from coder review, things that I would mark a patch NW for. Maybe they should be moved into coder proper? Or, alternately, someone else could take over the project... hmmm...

That said, there are also a few false fails in coder tough love. Is it worth filing issues about those if the project is not actively maintained?

xjm’s picture

xjm
she/her
Primary language English
commented
Status: Active » Postponed

Marked #1358940: Remove Coder_Tough_Love dependency from PIFR_Coder as a duplicate of this issue.

The current plan is to clean up false positives in CTL as much as possible, move the "official" rules into Coder, and then re-evaluate the CTL dependency.

xjm’s picture

xjm
she/her
Primary language English
commented
Status: Postponed » Active

Alright, I was wrong about this and I gave up on saving CTL back in February. Let's get rid of the false positives so that people can clean up the known issues first. We can add back the needed coverage once Coder is a bit healthier.

NROTC_Webmaster’s picture

NROTC_Webmaster commented
Status: Active » Needs review
StatusFileSize
new pifr-remove-coder-tough-love-1358940-4.patch2.68 KB

Here is a patch that removes the dependency. I didn't see any function calls to CTL but if they are there just let me know.

jthorson’s picture

jthorson commented
Status: Needs review » Reviewed & tested by the community

Looks right. Haven't actually tested, but don't know anyone else that's going to.

Will wrap this into a 6.x-2.8 'final' release, run some final tests, and deploy it to the testbots (hopefully sometime this week).

Testbots are currently running 6.x-2.8-rc4, and the final 6.x-2.8 release was pending my bzr access (needed to update qa.d.o). This should now be completed, so it's just a matter of gathering enough time to roll and update.

NROTC_Webmaster’s picture

NROTC_Webmaster commented

It looks like it made it into the latest version. Can this be closed now?

jthorson’s picture

jthorson commented
Status: Reviewed & tested by the community » Fixed

Yup ... the update introduced one issue, which was resolved last night ... I just missed updating this issue.

Status: Fixed » Closed (fixed)

Automatically closed -- issue fixed for 2 weeks with no activity.