Add a negate flag #15

Activity

1. petemounce commented on Mar 27, 2020

   

   petemounce

   on Mar 27, 2020

   Last edited by petemounce

   Author

   More actions

   ---
   # https://semver.org/#is-v123-a-semantic-version
   - name: VERSION files must contain semver.
     # LOLWAT? https://semver.org/#is-there-a-suggested-regular-expression-regex-to-check-a-semver-string
     pattern: '^(0|[1-9]\d*)\.(0|[1-9]\d*)\.(0|[1-9]\d*)(?:-((?:0|[1-9]\d*|\d*[a-zA-Z-][0-9a-zA-Z-]*)(?:\.(?:0|[1-9]\d*|\d*[a-zA-Z-][0-9a-zA-Z-]*))*))?(?:\+([0-9a-zA-Z-]+(?:\.[0-9a-zA-Z-]+)*))?$'
     hint: "https://semver.org/#is-v123-a-semantic-version"
     filePattern: '.*VERSION'
   
   - name: VERSION file contents must not be prefixed with a v
     pattern: '^v'
     hint: "https://semver.org/#is-v123-a-semantic-version"
     filePattern: '.*VERSION'

   cmd/VERSION:

   v0.1.1
   

   I want that file to fail both rules, not just the 2nd one.
2. petemounce commented on Mar 27, 2020

   

   petemounce

   on Mar 27, 2020

   Author

   More actions

   (and the LOLWAT refers to the regex itself ;) )
3. codingjoe

   self-assigned this

   on Mar 30, 2020
4. codingjoe

   added

   enhancementNew feature or requestNew feature or request

   on Mar 30, 2020
5. codingjoe commented on Mar 30, 2020

   

   codingjoe

   on Mar 30, 2020

   Owner

   More actions

   Hi @petemounce thanks for reaching out. I see your point, how this might come in handy. However, I am not 100% sure on how to integrate this, since we currently work with matches, that have line numbers and snippets, that are being displayed. Inverse matches would mean we only had file names.

   Anyhow, I still think it's possible to come up with a good solution. How about you propose a solution. Preferably as a pull-request and I will gladly review and release it.

   Best
   -Joe
6. viktorkertesz commented on Dec 14, 2022

   

   viktorkertesz

   on Dec 14, 2022

   More actions

   Hi @petemounce ,
   did you try this? (I know it doesn't cover everything, just to get a hang of it)

   ^(?!\d+\.\d+\.\d+).*$
   

   This won't match the correct versioning string but will trigger everything else.

   👍React with 👍1Reacted by mroy-seedbox
7. mroy-seedbox commented on Oct 10, 2024

   

   mroy-seedbox

   on Oct 10, 2024

   Last edited by mroy-seedbox

   More actions

   We have a similar challenge on our side. Here is the generalized idea:

   • We know the way something should look.
   • But it is very hard to describe the way it should not look (and there are possibly an infinite number of possibilities).

   Simple/silly example:

   • We only want to accept the string ABC if it is immediately followed by either DEF or 123.
   • The regex to find ABC is simple, but then it is much more challenging to say "trigger if there is anything else than DEF or 123 afterwards" (maybe not for regex gurus, but those are rare, and the resulting regexes are hard for everyone else to understand & maintain).

   What I would propose:

   • We keep the current concept of pattern matching to find rows in a file.
   • But then we add a new concept/parameter of mustMatch, which would be a positive regex of how the match should look, rather than trying to do it all via a negative/exclusion regex of what something bad looks like.
   • pattern would continue to match on rows, and extract the corresponding substring(s).
   • mustMatch would then have to find an exact match (in each substring), or the rule would be triggered (for each substring).
   • If mustMatch matches, the rule is not triggered.

   So the solution to the above would become:

   pattern: 'ABC.*' # or maybe 'ABC.{3}'
   mustMatch: 'ABC((DEF)|(123))'

   And @petemounce, the solution for you could probably look something like this (although I'm probably missing a lot of details):

   pattern: '[^\d]\d+\.\d+\.\d+[^\d]'
   mustMatch: '[^v]\d+\.\d+\.\d+' # or maybe '"\d+\.\d+\.\d+"'

   So much simpler. 💙

   @petemounce, @codingjoe: What do you think?
8. codingjoe commented on Oct 10, 2024

   

   codingjoe

   on Oct 10, 2024

   Owner

   More actions

   Hm… that is an interesting idea. I like the concept of either looking for something that shouldn't be there, or should. I'd love to see this included in a new version. Heck, I'd actually love to implement path to test functions written in Python, like test_func: "package.module:function" and that function gets called with a file's contents.

   I believe it's time for a new major release, with some exciting new features and maybe some breaking changes. If anyone is interested in contributing, please let me know.

   👍React with 👍1Reacted by mroy-seedbox

   ❤️React with ❤️1Reacted by mroy-seedbox

   🚀React with 🚀1Reacted by mroy-seedbox
9. mroy-seedbox commented on Mar 8, 2025

   

   mroy-seedbox

   on Mar 8, 2025

   Last edited by mroy-seedbox

   More actions

   Quick idea: reLint could look for a file called .relint.py in the project root (just like it currently looks for .relint.yml), and source the python module/functions from there. So if we configure test_func: some_function, then it would simply call the some_function function from .relint.py. This also leaves room for a more advanced implementation via package.module:function in the future (although .relint.py could easily integrate with any other package or module, and serve as an interface/facade for reLint).

   The functions should probably have a signature along the line of (rule, file, match), where:

   • rule is the full corresponding object defined in .relint.yml (with name, pattern, etc.)
   • file is the path of the file currently being linted.
     • This could be used to read the file as a string, if necessary.
   • match is an individual match for the rule's pattern (if pattern is used in combination with test_func).
     • The function should be called once for each match (or called only once if the rule has no pattern, with none as the match).
     • Or maybe the function signature could just be (rule, file) if it expects to be used without a pattern. And if a function could be usable for both cases (with or without a pattern), it's signature could be (rule, file, match=none).

   Related:

   • Enhancement: programmatic hook, or structured output, for downstream CLI tools #108

   Open question: what kind of return value would reLint expect? 🤔 Returning an object would probably offer the most flexibility, because then new key-values could easily be added in the future (since we cannot possibly predict every need).
10. codingjoe commented on Mar 15, 2025

    

    codingjoe

    on Mar 15, 2025

    Owner

    More actions

    Hi there 👋,

    Yes, the idea of adding declarative tests has been floating around for a while. I am not opposed to the idea. However, I feature can coexist on their own. Don't hesitate to open a separate issue or discussion for such a feature.

    Cheers!
    Joe
11. Repository owner locked and limited conversation to collaborators on Mar 15, 2025
12. codingjoe

    converted this issue into a discussion #110 on Mar 15, 2025