docs(website): Fix several inspections hints #7635
Conversation
fviernau
changed the title
| |----------|-------------| | ||
| | deniedProcessEnvironmentVariablesSubstrings | A list of substrings that identify variables containing sensitive information. All variables that contain at least one of these strings (ignoring case) are not propagated to child processes. The default for this property contains strings like "PASS", "PWD", or "TOKEN", which are typically used to reference credentials. | | ||
| | allowedProcessEnvironmentVariableNames | This is a list of variable names that are explicitly allowed to be passed to child processes - even if they contain a substring listed in `deniedProcessEnvironmentVariablesSubstrings`. Via this property variables required by external tools, e.g. credentials for repositories needed by package managers, can be passed through. Here, entries must match variables names exactly and case-sensitively. | | ||
| | Property | Description | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If I'm not mistaken, these changes do not result in any visual differences. So, could you please elaborate in what way this is more "correct"? If this is just about aligning cell layout in the code, I tend towards keeping it as-is for less whitespace disturbance.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This was flagged by a code inspection hint. This commit silences it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please provide the details in the commit message then (which tool was used, which is the rule that was violated). Esp. as none of our automated Markdown checks seem to cover this, we need to find an agreement on what tool recommendations to follow, and which not.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@sschuberth commit message has been updated, can I keep it or shall I drop the commit?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd like to hear @mnonnenmacher's opinion on that as he has recently addressed a bunch of Markdown style issues. Personally, I have a slight tendency to drop it, as we'd otherwise need to do the same change for all Markdown tables for consistency, and I prefer to be able to rely on our automated Markdown checks (but maybe there's a rule that we could enable, if this change is desired).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've split this out into a separate PR, so let's continue discussion there: #7648.
| @@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ created run configuration to your needs, e.g. by adding an argument and options | |||
| ## Testing | |||
|
|
|||
| ORT uses [Kotest](https://github.com/kotest/kotest) as the test framework. For running tests and individual test cases | |||
| from the IDE, the [Kotest plugin](https://plugins.jetbrains.com/plugin/14080-kotest) needs to be installed. Afterwards, | |||
| from the IDE, the [Kotest plugin](https://plugins.jetbrains.com/plugin/14080-kotest) needs to be installed. Afterward, | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Note that while "afterward" seems to be exclusively American English, "afterwards" is not exclusively British English, but also American English. Personally, I prefer "afterwards" over "afterward".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
From my research, I found that in AE the term "afterward" is preferred. To my understanding we stick to AE. Given that, it implies to me that "afterward" makes sense / should be preferred.
Do you disagree with this argumentation? If so why?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's correct that we should stick to AE, and I'd agree with the change if proof was provided that AE prefers "afterward" over "afterwards". So, please share the reference you found during your research.
Edit: I did some quick research myself, and both this and this seem to confirm that in AE "afterward" is more common, so I'm fine with that change.
Codecov ReportAll modified lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #7635 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage 68.03% 68.03%
Complexity 2023 2023
=========================================
Files 344 344
Lines 16727 16727
Branches 2372 2372
=========================================
Hits 11381 11381
Misses 4363 4363
Partials 983 983
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
fviernau
force-pushed
the
website-code-inspection-fixes
branch
from
22bcd69 to
3238167
Compare
Signed-off-by: Frank Viernau <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Frank Viernau <[email protected]>
fviernau
force-pushed
the
website-code-inspection-fixes
branch
from
3238167 to
e0046aa
Compare
No description provided.