Open
Bug 1280893
Opened 8 years ago
Updated 3 years ago
[tracking] Implement checks for Fluent messages
Categories
(Localization Infrastructure and Tools :: compare-locales, enhancement)
Localization Infrastructure and Tools
compare-locales
Tracking
(Not tracked)
NEW
People
(Reporter: Pike, Unassigned)
References
(Depends on 3 open bugs)
Details
(Whiteboard: [gecko-l20n])
User Story
Implement checks for: [x] Values [x] Attributes [x] missing and obsolete [x] duplicates [ ] Interpolations [ ] external arguments [ ] built-ins [ ] message references [ ] selectors [ ] Sections
On top of the mere file-format support for l20n from bug 1280891, we also need some l20n-specific checks.
This might turn into a tracker of the individual checks. For now, we block bug gecko-l10n, but that might be something to just do for individual bugs.
stas, one question I already have is if we know anything yet about en-US-specific traits?
Flags: needinfo?(stas)
Comment hidden (obsolete) |
Reporter | ||
Comment 2•8 years ago
|
||
Mass change dependency tree for bug 1279002 into a whiteboard keyword.
No longer blocks: gecko-l20n
Whiteboard: [gecko-l20n]
Comment hidden (obsolete) |
Comment 4•7 years ago
|
||
Comment 5•7 years ago
|
||
Bug 1199670 added the following checks:
- missing and obsolete values (error)
- missing and obsolete attributes (error)
- duplicate attributes (warning)
Let's use this bug as a tracker for adding more checks. Please file new bugs blocking this one when working on new checks.
Summary: Implement checks for l20n in ftl values → [tracking] Implement checks for Fluent messages
Updated•7 years ago
|
User Story: (updated)
Reporter | ||
Comment 6•7 years ago
|
||
Hooking up some existing bugs we filed as follow-ups.
Re Section tests, we could for example warn if the sections of the original file don't exist if there are entities from those sections present in the localizations.
Also, duplicate sections? Not sure how bad that'd be.
Comment 7•7 years ago
|
||
Thanks for linking the other bugs.
Sections in Fluent are really just glorified comments. As such I don't think it should be forbidden to have duplicate sections. In fact it might even be useful for grouping things like buttons, actions, shortcuts etc.
Reporter | ||
Updated•6 years ago
|
Type: defect → enhancement
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•