run_clang_format.py cleanup

[dpfrey]

No description provided.

[MichalPrincNXP]

Hello @dpfrey , thank you for this PR. I have two comments/questions:

• What is the first command about (Make run_clang_format.py executable)? I do not see any difference.
• I would stay with "subprocess.call(["clang-format-10.0", "-i", file])" - thus users are informed again that the v10.0 needs to be used, maybe the description in https://github.com/EmbeddedRPC/erpc/wiki/Contributing could be updated to be more accurate about install folder naming / script content renaming

[dpfrey]

Thanks for taking a look at this @MichalPrincNXP.

git tracks file permissions. So prior to this PR, if someone clones eRPC, the run_clang_format.py will not have the executable permission and therefore it will not be possible to do:

$ ./run_clang_format.py

The user must either run:

$ python run_clang_format.py

or:

$ chmod a+x run_clang_format.py
$ ./run_clang_format.py

So it's basically just a minor ease of use change and it also helps to signal to the user that this python file is meant to be executed as a script rather than imported as a library.

I was previously building eRPC on arch linux and there was no clang-format-10 binary, only clang-format. My Arch Linux install imploded and I have installed Ubuntu and it has clang-format-10. I guess clang-format might be better for compatibility than clang-format-10, but I guess that makes it less clear that version 10 is required.

[MichalPrincNXP]

Thank you, @dpfrey . Re. the way Clang version is checking, better approach would be runtime check, I think. I have updated the script by this runtime version checking ... may I ask you to try on your side, please? Thank you.
M.
run_clang_format.zip

[dpfrey]

Hi @MichalPrincNXP, I took the code from your zip file and modified it to allow any clang-format newer than 10.0.0. I pushed a new commit on top of this PR that adds the version checking.

[MichalPrincNXP]

David, I would rather stick with 10.0.0 version. I have read that each version produces a littler different output and that is why one specified version would be preferred.

[Hadatko]

Hi @dpfrey it is really important to stick with one concrete version of clang-format application. Even minor version may provide different output. If users will change code with different clang-format application, they may change formatted code back and forth. This may result in redundant code format changes pushed to the repository.

[Hadatko]

Other changes looks great. Btw i would like to add this link to several places to let user know where to download binary https://releases.llvm.org/download.html (like documentation, formatting script,...).
Currently i think we are using clang-format from path environment. Maybe we should first check if exist variable CLANG_FORMAT_PATH. Users may use it to set path to downloaded clang-format.

What do you think @dpfrey, @MichalPrincNXP ?
@dpfrey do you think it can be part of this PR?

[dpfrey]

Thanks for the feedback @Hadatko And @MichalPrincNXP. I agree that it would be a problem if a clang-format newer than 10.0 produced output different from 10.0.0. In the latest commit, I require clang-format == 10.0.0 and I also made $CLANG_FORMAT_PATH the first choice and "clang-format" the backup.

[MichalPrincNXP]

Great, thank you @dpfrey !