Repository navigation
Revive excludedPaths by stopping double resolution - #6825
Open
tomotakatakahashi wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
tomotakatakahashi wants to merge 1 commit into
tomotakatakahashi wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
Generated by 🚫 Danger |
tomotakatakahashi
marked this pull request as ready for review
July 15, 2026 14:56
tomotakatakahashi
force-pushed
the
exclusion-ignored-6795
branch
from
July 15, 2026 14:59
3e1a6c8 to
40ce904
Compare
SimplyDanny
requested changes
Aug 21, 2026
SimplyDanny
left a comment
SimplyDanny
left a comment
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This change is causing changes in scanned OSS repositories. That's definitely unexpected and should be revisited.
Author
|
Thank you for your feedback. I wasn't entirely clear on the comment from SwiftLintBot, but I now understand that I need to address the warnings. I will try to look into this, though my time might be a bit limited. |
Author
|
@SimplyDanny After a little investigation, I now think the changes in the scanned OSS repositories are expected. The files listed under "This PR fixed a violation":
are all excluded via .swiftlint.yml files (1, 2, 3, 4) in that repository. So if the main branch were working correctly, these files shouldn't produce any violations at all. Therefore "This PR fixed a violation" messages are desirable and expected. My guess is that the double-resolution bug was introduced by PR #6636, but somehow SwiftLintBot couldn't catch it. Could you take a look? |
Collaborator
|
I had another look at it, @tomotakatakahashi, and I think you are right and the fix is decent. Thank you and sorry for my doubts! I got so much used to be extra careful these days with so many automated low-quality contributions that I didn't believe in this rather simple fix and the OSS findings appeared to me like a warning signal. As for testing, there is Would you be willing to rebase as well? The builds seem to be stuck for whatever reason. A rebase should fix that. |
2 tasks done
tomotakatakahashi
force-pushed
the
exclusion-ignored-6795
branch
from
August 28, 2026 23:36
40ce904 to
f931eab
Compare
Author
|
Thank you for your review. Your doubts are completely understandable, especially in the AI era. I appreciate you maintaining SwiftLint. I've rebased the branch onto the latest main and force-pushed it. I'll take a look at |
tomotakatakahashi
force-pushed
the
exclusion-ignored-6795
branch
from
September 6, 2026 01:12
f931eab to
dfc4c10
Compare
Author
|
Sorry for the delay. While I was adding test cases, Claude Code reported a potential regression. I'm investigating it. I'll keep working on this, but I may not be very responsive, so feel free to take over this PR if you'd rather not wait. |
tomotakatakahashi
marked this pull request as draft
September 7, 2026 00:47
4 tasks done
tomotakatakahashi
force-pushed
the
exclusion-ignored-6795
branch
2 times, most recently
from
September 26, 2026 01:33
aea09b4 to
76086fb
Compare
tomotakatakahashi
marked this pull request as ready for review
September 26, 2026 01:47
Author
|
@SimplyDanny This PR is now ready for review. Could you take another look? Notes:
|
This commit stops resolving a path to an absolute path in Configuration.groupFiles. This will resolve the issue mentioned in comments in realm#6795 that the "excluded" configuration in .swiftlint.yml is ignored when file paths are passed as arguments. Two tests are added. `nestedConfigurationBasicWithCommandLine` is the test for this change. `wildCardPatternCountWithCommandLine` is not related to this change, but just added to note a remaining bug.
tomotakatakahashi
force-pushed
the
exclusion-ignored-6795
branch
from
October 23, 2026 22:58
76086fb to
b7fbe91
Compare
Author
|
I rebased this branch onto main to pick up #6932, which fixes the unrelated documentation job failure. |
This branch has not been deployed
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
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.
Summary
This commit stops resolving a path to an absolute path in
Configuration.groupFiles. This will resolve the issue mentioned in comments in #6795 that theexcludedconfiguration in .swiftlint.yml is ignored when file paths are passed as arguments.Context
The
excludedconfiguration is sometimes ignored since v0.64.0 (#6795 (comment)). The issue seems to happen when file paths are passed as arguments (for example, runningswiftlint Foo.swift Bar.swiftinstead ofswiftlint .orswiftlint).Using a debugger, I found that
excludedRelativePathin the diff was actually not a relative path, because it had already been resolved in Configuration+Parsing.swift. As a result,let excludedPathin the diff was being doubly-resolved to an invalid path like"file:///Users/username/projects/foo/Users/username/projects/foo/MyPackage/Package.swift".Test
Arguments Passed On LaunchNoProblem.swift MyPackage/Package.swift, running the swiftlint scheme:nestedConfigurationBasicWithCommandLinemainbranch'sSourceSourcewildCardPatternCountWithCommandLinefails with bothmainand this branchComment
I couldn't find an appropriate place to put unit tests. Any suggestions would be appreciated.ConfigPathResolutionTestsas I was advised.wildCardPatternCountWithCommandLineis not actually related to this change. I add this test just to note a remaining bug.