235 lines
9.8 KiB
Markdown
235 lines
9.8 KiB
Markdown
# Roadmap 2021
|
|
|
|
# Summary
|
|
|
|
This Roadmap lays out the plans for Clippy in 2021:
|
|
|
|
- Improving usability and reliability
|
|
- Improving experience of contributors and maintainers
|
|
- Develop and specify processes
|
|
|
|
Members of the Clippy team will be assigned tasks from one or more of these
|
|
topics. The team member is then responsible to complete the assigned tasks. This
|
|
can either be done by implementing them or by providing mentorship to interested
|
|
contributors.
|
|
|
|
# Motivation
|
|
|
|
With the ongoing growth of the Rust language and with that of the whole
|
|
ecosystem, also Clippy gets more and more users and contributors. This is good
|
|
for the project, but also brings challenges along. Some of these challenges are:
|
|
|
|
- More issues about reliability or usability are popping up
|
|
- Traffic is hard to handle for a small team
|
|
- Bigger projects don't get completed due to the lack of processes and/or time
|
|
of the team members
|
|
|
|
Additionally, according to the [Rust Roadmap 2021], clear processes should be
|
|
defined by every team and unified across teams. This Roadmap is the first step
|
|
towards this.
|
|
|
|
[Rust Roadmap 2021]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3037
|
|
|
|
# Explanation
|
|
|
|
This section will explain the things that should be done in 2021. It is
|
|
important to note, that this document focuses on the "What?", not the "How?".
|
|
The later will be addressed in follow-up tracking issue, with an assigned team
|
|
member.
|
|
|
|
The following is split up in two major sections. The first section covers the
|
|
user facing plans, the second section the internal plans.
|
|
|
|
## User Facing
|
|
|
|
Clippy should be as pleasant to use and configure as possible. This section
|
|
covers plans that should be implemented to improve the situation of Clippy in
|
|
this regard.
|
|
|
|
### Usability
|
|
|
|
In the following, plans to improve the usability are covered.
|
|
|
|
#### No Output After `cargo check`
|
|
|
|
Currently when `cargo clippy` is run after `cargo check`, it does not produce
|
|
any output. This is especially problematic since `rust-analyzer` is on the rise
|
|
and it uses `cargo check` for checking code. A fix is already implemented, but
|
|
it still has to be pushed over the finish line. This also includes the
|
|
stabilization of the `cargo clippy --fix` command or the support of multi-span
|
|
suggestions in `rustfix`.
|
|
|
|
- [#4612](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/4612)
|
|
|
|
#### `lints.toml` Configuration
|
|
|
|
This is something that comes up every now and then: a reusable configuration
|
|
file, where lint levels can be defined. Discussions about this often lead to
|
|
nothing specific or to "we need an RFC for this". And this is exactly what needs
|
|
to be done. Get together with the cargo team and write an RFC and implement such
|
|
a configuration file somehow and somewhere.
|
|
|
|
- [#3164](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/3164)
|
|
- [cargo#5034](https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/issues/5034)
|
|
- [IRLO](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/proposal-cargo-lint-configuration/9135/8)
|
|
|
|
#### Lint Groups
|
|
|
|
There are more and more issues about managing lints in Clippy popping up. Lints
|
|
are hard to implement with a guarantee of no/few false positives (FPs). One way
|
|
to address this might be to introduce more lint groups to give users the ability
|
|
to better manage lints, or improve the process of classifying lints, so that
|
|
disabling lints due to FPs becomes rare. It is important to note, that Clippy
|
|
lints are less conservative than `rustc` lints, which won't change in the
|
|
future.
|
|
|
|
- [#5537](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/5537)
|
|
- [#6366](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/6366)
|
|
|
|
### Reliability
|
|
|
|
In the following, plans to improve the reliability are covered.
|
|
|
|
#### False Positive Rate
|
|
|
|
In the worst case, new lints are only available in nightly for 2 weeks, before
|
|
hitting beta and ultimately stable. This and the fact that fewer people use
|
|
nightly Rust nowadays makes it more probable that a lint with many FPs hits
|
|
stable. This leads to annoyed users, that will disable these new lints in the
|
|
best case and to more annoyed users, that will stop using Clippy in the worst.
|
|
A process should be developed and implemented to prevent this from happening.
|
|
|
|
- [#6429](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/6429)
|
|
|
|
## Internal
|
|
|
|
(The end of) 2020 has shown, that Clippy has to think about the available
|
|
resources, especially regarding management and maintenance of the project. This
|
|
section address issues affecting team members and contributors.
|
|
|
|
### Management
|
|
|
|
In 2020 Clippy achieved over 1000 open issues with regularly between 25-35 open
|
|
PRs. This is simultaneously a win and a loss. More issues and PRs means more
|
|
people are interested in Clippy and in contributing to it. On the other hand, it
|
|
means for team members more work and for contributors longer wait times for
|
|
reviews. The following will describe plans how to improve the situation for both
|
|
team members and contributors.
|
|
|
|
#### Clear Expectations for Team Members
|
|
|
|
According to the [Rust Roadmap 2021], a document specifying what it means to be
|
|
a member of the team should be produced. This should not put more pressure on
|
|
the team members, but rather help them and interested folks to know what the
|
|
expectations are. With this it should also be easier to recruit new team members
|
|
and may encourage people to get in touch, if they're interested to join.
|
|
|
|
#### Scaling up the Team
|
|
|
|
More people means less work for each individual. Together with the document
|
|
about expectations for team members, a document defining the process of how to
|
|
join the team should be produced. This can also increase the stability of the
|
|
team, in case of current members dropping out (temporarily). There can also be
|
|
different roles in the team, like people triaging vs. people reviewing.
|
|
|
|
#### Regular Meetings
|
|
|
|
Other teams have regular meetings. Clippy is big enough that it might be worth
|
|
to also do them. Especially if more people join the team, this can be important
|
|
for sync-ups. Besides the asynchronous communication, that works well for
|
|
working on separate lints, a meeting adds a synchronous alternative at a known
|
|
time. This is especially helpful if there are bigger things that need to be
|
|
discussed (like the projects in this roadmap). For starters bi-weekly meetings
|
|
before Rust syncs might make sense.
|
|
|
|
#### Triaging
|
|
|
|
To get a handle on the influx of open issues, a process for triaging issues and
|
|
PRs should be developed. Officially, Clippy follows the Rust triage process, but
|
|
currently no one enforces it. This can be improved by sharing triage teams
|
|
across projects or by implementing dashboards / tools which simplify triaging.
|
|
|
|
### Development
|
|
|
|
Improving the developer and contributor experience is something the Clippy team
|
|
works on regularly. Though, some things might need special attention and
|
|
planing. These topics are listed in the following.
|
|
|
|
#### Process for New and Existing Lints
|
|
|
|
As already mentioned above, classifying new lints gets quite hard, because the
|
|
probability of a buggy lint getting into stable is quite high. A process should
|
|
be implemented on how to classify lints. In addition, a test system should be
|
|
developed to find out which lints are currently problematic in real world code
|
|
to fix or disable them.
|
|
|
|
- [#6429 (comment)](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/6429#issuecomment-741056379)
|
|
- [#6429 (comment)](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/6429#issuecomment-741153345)
|
|
|
|
#### Processes
|
|
|
|
Related to the point before, a process for suggesting and discussing major
|
|
changes should be implemented. It's also not clearly defined when a lint should
|
|
be enabled or disabled by default. This can also be improved by the test system
|
|
mentioned above.
|
|
|
|
#### Dev-Tools
|
|
|
|
There's already `cargo dev` which makes Clippy development easier and more
|
|
pleasant. This can still be expanded, so that it covers more areas of the
|
|
development process.
|
|
|
|
- [#5394](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/5394)
|
|
|
|
#### Contributor Guide
|
|
|
|
Similar to a Clippy Book, which describes how to use Clippy, a book about how to
|
|
contribute to Clippy might be helpful for new and existing contributors. There's
|
|
already the `doc` directory in the Clippy repo, this can be turned into a
|
|
`mdbook`.
|
|
|
|
#### `rustc` integration
|
|
|
|
Recently Clippy was integrated with `git subtree` into the `rust-lang/rust`
|
|
repository. This made syncing between the two repositories easier. A
|
|
`#[non_exhaustive]` list of things that still can be improved is:
|
|
|
|
1. Use the same `rustfmt` version and configuration as `rustc`.
|
|
2. Make `cargo dev` work in the Rust repo, just as it works in the Clippy repo.
|
|
E.g. `cargo dev bless` or `cargo dev update_lints`. And even add more things
|
|
to it that might be useful for the Rust repo, e.g. `cargo dev deprecate`.
|
|
3. Easier sync process. The `subtree` situation is not ideal.
|
|
|
|
## Prioritization
|
|
|
|
The most pressing issues for users of Clippy are of course the user facing
|
|
issues. So there should be a priority on those issues, but without losing track
|
|
of the internal issues listed in this document.
|
|
|
|
Getting the FP rate of warn/deny-by-default lints under control should have the
|
|
highest priority. Other user facing issues should also get a high priority, but
|
|
shouldn't be in the way of addressing internal issues.
|
|
|
|
To better manage the upcoming projects, the basic internal processes, like
|
|
meetings, tracking issues and documentation, should be established as soon as
|
|
possible. They might even be necessary to properly manage the projects,
|
|
regarding the user facing issues.
|
|
|
|
# Prior Art
|
|
|
|
## Rust Roadmap
|
|
|
|
Rust's roadmap process was established by [RFC 1728] in 2016. Since then every
|
|
year a roadmap was published, that defined the bigger plans for the coming
|
|
years. This years roadmap can be found [here][Rust Roadmap 2021].
|
|
|
|
[RFC 1728]: https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/1728-north-star.html
|
|
|
|
# Drawbacks
|
|
|
|
## Big Roadmap
|
|
|
|
This roadmap is pretty big and not all items listed in this document might be
|
|
addressed during 2021. Because this is the first roadmap for Clippy, having open
|
|
tasks at the end of 2021 is fine, but they should be revisited in the 2022
|
|
roadmap.
|