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

Add checkfile tool to replace checkdoc #347

Closed
mackjmr opened this issue Jun 28, 2023 · 1 comment
Closed

Add checkfile tool to replace checkdoc #347

mackjmr opened this issue Jun 28, 2023 · 1 comment
Assignees

Comments

@mackjmr
Copy link
Member

mackjmr commented Jun 28, 2023

Now that metadata.yaml is a requirement on contrib (PR), we are going to add a check to validate the presence of the file for each component. Once it is also a requirement on core, we would also add the check on core.

Checking for the presence of the metadata.yaml for each component is very similar to what checkdoc does for README.md, the only difference being the file that is checked.

This is a proposal to deprecate checkdoc and add checkfile instead, where the file to check will be passed as an argument.
e.g.

//	checkfile --project-path path/to/project \
//				--component-rel-path service/defaultcomponents/defaults.go \
//				--module-name go.opentelemetry.io/collector
//				--file-name README.md

Like this, we can use checkfile for both README.md and metadata.yaml

mackjmr added a commit to mackjmr/opentelemetry-go-build-tools that referenced this issue Jun 28, 2023
This PR adds a `checkfile` tool which validates the presence of a file for each component. It also deprecates `checkdoc`. Please see the related issue (open-telemetry#347) for additional details on the reason.

**Note:** We will be able to remove `internal/check` and move the code to `checkfile` once `checkdoc` is removed.
pellared pushed a commit that referenced this issue Jul 17, 2023
This PR adds a `checkfile` tool which validates the presence of a file for each component.
It also deprecates `checkdoc`.
Please see the related issue (#347) for additional details on the reason.
@pellared
Copy link
Member

Fixed in #348

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants