uncrustify: split lines at 80 chars

[kaspar030]

Contribution description

Currently, uncrustify doesn't care about too long lines. Unfortunately it also creates them itself, see this.

This PR configures uncrustify to allow a maximum of 100 chars per line.

Testing procedure

Check uncrustify output with and without this change.

Issues/PRs references

#10867

[miri64]

Needs rebase.

[miri64]

Here is what I dread: If you want to make uncrustify the authoritative decision maker but with this change you basically break

• Line length: aim for no more than 80 characters per line, the absolute maximum should be 100 characters per line.

from our coding conventions. I always (at least for the last few years... don't look at my old code you monster!) interpreted this as 80 chars is desirable, but if you absolutely have to you can go up to hundred (e.g. with a break at 80 it would be less readable or URLs in doc [though those might actually overreach 100]). So I would say: set it to 80 and if there are instances where 100 is needed use begin{code-style-ignore} (unless there is a way to get uncrustify to interpret this as it is written...).

[jia200x]

So I would say: set it to 80 and if there are instances where 100 is needed use begin{code-style-ignore} (unless there is a way to get uncrustify to interpret this as it is written...).

+1

I just tried it with code_width=80 and looks fine :)

[kaspar030]

Wrapping in the begin/end markers for function declarations? Nah that looks weird. ;)

I just tried it with code_width=80 and looks fine :)

Hm, I'm not so sure. The coding conventions say "desirable" for a reason, it doesn't make sense to force it.

With uncrustify's current config, it would try hard to keep e.g., "int foobar" together. If set to 80 and "foobar" crosses that, uncrustify would wrap before the "int". IMO it looks better to have foobar cross over the 80 chars in those cases. But "desirable" (compared to "forced") is not being argued here, right?

Setting uncrustify to 100 max line length would do what the coding conventions currently express: allow some lines to be somewhat longer in order to prevent ugly wraps, at the discretion of the author. (Also, don't let uncrustify create overlength lines itself, as happened here.)

I'd like to arrive at an uncrustify config that becomes "fire and forget". If it constantly shortens my declarations because of a couple of chars over 80, I personally find it too intrusive.

May I suggest staying with 100 chars (as in, lines really shouldn't be longer), and let the extra characters be leeway as per coding conventions?

[jia200x]

May I suggest staying with 100 chars (as in, lines really shouldn't be longer), and let the extra characters be leeway as per coding conventions?

Do you know if Uncrustify enforces ALL lines to be lower than 100 in this case?

If so, I'm OK with the proposal ;)

[miri64]

I'd like to arrive at an uncrustify config that becomes "fire and forget". If it constantly shortens my declarations because of a couple of chars over 80, I personally find it too intrusive.

See, this is where I see the problem. If we argue that cppcheck is fire and forget, we forget that our actual line length is 80 chars. ;-)

[miri64]

Or alternatively we get the style discussions you dread, because a maintainer wants a line to be <80, but uncrustify gave you a longer line ;-).

[kaspar030]

Ok, in the name of not having to discuss this, this now sets 80 chars line limit.

[kaspar030]

@miri64 wanna take another look?

[miri64]

ACK. Though this might yield some false positives in the CI if we use uncrustify there, but I think we could have this solved by using different tools there.