DescriptionCheck: check for description repeating package name#781
Open
mgorny wants to merge 1 commit intopkgcore:masterfrom
Open
DescriptionCheck: check for description repeating package name#781mgorny wants to merge 1 commit intopkgcore:masterfrom
mgorny wants to merge 1 commit intopkgcore:masterfrom
Conversation
Contributor
Author
|
Results ( Details |
Signed-off-by: Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org>
ferringb
reviewed
May 9, 2026
| elif s.startswith(lower_pn) and s.removeprefix(lower_pn).startswith( | ||
| (" is", " -", ":", ",") | ||
| ): | ||
| yield BadDescription("repeats package name", pkg_desc=desc, pkg=pkg) |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
is there any reason to do this, rather than just saying "don't use the package name in the package description" ?
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are you asking why the "is" etc. logic or the check in general?
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No, I mean why should the pkgcheck package description ever need to actually use the word 'pkgcheck' in it? pkgcheck is is the english lead in for pkgcheck; is there a reason to try to catch phrases like this, rather than just saying "there's 99% no valid reason to use the package name in the description"?
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Because otherwise there's a lot of false positives when package name reasonably matches what it does.
For example:
[N] dev-python/base58 ((~)2.1.1): Base58 and Base58Check implementation
ferringb
approved these changes
May 9, 2026
Contributor
ferringb
left a comment
ferringb
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No complaints from me, sans the usual bike shedding.
| if s.startswith("based on") and "eclass" in s: | ||
| yield BadDescription("generic eclass defined description", pkg_desc=desc, pkg=pkg) | ||
| elif s in (pkg.package.lower(), pkg.key.lower()): | ||
| elif s in (lower_pn, pkg.key.lower()): |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't hugely care, but this blocks now feels redundant- your more specific error below is clearer than "generic package name", imo.
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I was wondering about that too. But I figured out there's a difference between package description being completely meaningless (i.e. 100% repeat of PN) vs. having redundant prefix.
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, my core thought here is "generic description" doesn't really mean much.
"this is a package for python". That's generic.
"pkgcheck" for pkgcheck's description is not generic as much as someone needing a wedgie, and calling it generic is accurate, but just feels off to me.
^^^ that's bikeshedding territory, to be clear. Whatever you or others think is best works for me- the check you're adding is the one with higher value imo.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
No description provided.