meta: add action that requires LF line endings #956
Conversation
|
This test will pass once #952 is merged. |
| steps: | ||
| - run: sudo apt-get update && sudo apt-get install dos2unix | ||
| - uses: actions/checkout@v2 | ||
| - run: (ls core/cap-*.md | xargs -I '{}' sh -c 'cat {} | dos2unix | cmp - {}') || (echo 'Documents listed above contain CRLF line endings, and should be LF.'; exit 1) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we also need to enforce encoding or crlf is enough?
I see that dos2unix allows to enforce utf8bom for example.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd like to enforce both, but I'd like to start with only line endings in this PR and follow up with utf8 in a separate pr once I understand the state of that better I'm the repo.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I looked more at this, I don't think we need to enforce utf8bom, just utf8 is sufficient whether the bom is present or not. Many of our CAPs only used ASCII characters and so the distinction is not particularly useful. If any file strays outside utf8 the dos2unix tool should error on that I think.
Unless you think we should require utf8bom, or need to do more testing here, I think we're okay.
What
Add action that requires LF line endings, and errors if CRLF line endings are present in CAPs.
Why
Different line endings are inconvenient when folks on different operating systems are working together on documents. I found this when working on CAP-35 but ignore it at the time. Discovered in #950 that the CRLF line endings can affect diffs.
Close #953
Known Limitations
This action is limited to checking CAPs as a starting point. We can extend it to SEPs too, but let's start here.