build: only lint markdown files that have changed (POSIX-only)

[Trott]

Update Makefile so that only markdown files that have changed will be
linted. Currently, if one file in doc/api has changed, all files in
doc/api are linted.

On Windows, the lint-md task currently lints all files regardless of
whether any files has changed, and that behavior is unchanged here.

A further improvement is that when tools/lint-md.js is rebuilt, the
timestamp file is removed so that all files are linted again. This is
because rebuilding lint-md.js can introduce new rules or modify existing
rules, so re-linting everything helps make sure that accidental breakage
doesn't slip by unnoticed.

Checklist

• make -j4 test (UNIX), or vcbuild test (Windows) passes
• commit message follows commit guidelines

[Trott]

@nodejs/linting @nodejs/build-files @DerekNonGeneric

[Trott]

On my laptop, this change saves 17 seconds on the markdown lint run when a single .md file in doc/api is edited.

$ touch doc/api/assert.md &&time make lint-mdRunning Markdown linter on docs...real	0m17.836suser	0m20.322ssys	0m1.128s
$ git stash pop &&!!git stash pop && touch doc/api/assert.md && time make lint-mdOn branch masterYour branch is up-to-date with 'origin/master'.Changes not staged for commit: (use "git add <file>..." to update what will be committed) (use "git checkout -- <file>..." to discard changes in working directory)	modified: Makefileno changes added to commit (use "git add" and/or "git commit -a")Dropped refs/stash@{0} (b0765bc82f1d2948f958ebd630363f8dc67d2271)Running Markdown linter on docs...real	0m0.812suser	0m0.601ssys	0m0.218s
$

[nodejs-github-bot]

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/29298/

[DerekNonGeneric]

I agree that, due to the potential for a rebuilt linter to have different verification criteria, all verifiable files would need to be re-checked. However, I don't think it's necessary to have a timestamp file at all.

Rather than placing a timestamp (.mdlintstamp) file in the tools directory each time a full verification is completed, I think it would be more intelligent to run touch ./tools/lint-md.js, which would update the timestamp of the actual linter doing the verification. Likewise, a successfully rebuilt linter would automatically have its timestamp updated.

That way, it would be known that any files newer than the timestamp of this linter file would need to be re-verified. What do you think?

[DerekNonGeneric]

I should add that each time the linter is re-built, all verifiable files would then need to be touched, which would cause their timestamps to be newer than the linter file (Markdown newer than linter == unverified). This would result in them needing to be re-verified. Here's how it would work in practice.

Building the linter (run make lint-md-rollup)

1. Build Markdown linter [linter's timestamp is now current]
2. Touch all Markdown targets [linter is now older than Markdown targets]

Linting the docs (run make lint-md)

1. Lint all Markdown targets newer than tools/lint-md.js (all of them)
2. On success, touch tools/lint-md.js [linter is now newer than Markdown targets]

---

It's just an idea if interested in doing away with the stamp file. If not, LGTM.

[Trott]

I think having a separate timestamp file like we do now is preferable. If someone is having weird issues with their files not being linted (been there!) and they just want to hit a reset button and have all files re-linted (been there too!), it's easy with a timestamp file: Just remove it.

In the scenario you describe, we'd either have to "touch" all lintable files (yikes), artificially set the timestamp on lint-md.js to something in the (probably distant) past, or introduce an otherwise-unnecessary option like a -f flag or something that will then likely mean another Makefile task.

[Trott]

Also, in the current setting, the Makefile itself handles most of the timestamp magic. If we move it to be the timestamp of the lint-md.js file, we lose most or all of that.

[DerekNonGeneric]

Very good points. Perhaps having an independent stamp file would be preferable.

[nschonni]

Might end up having a high overhead, but did you consider creating an MD5 hash of the files instead of the timestamp? That would be cross platform compatible AFAIK

[Trott]

Might end up having a high overhead, but did you consider creating an MD5 hash of the files instead of the timestamp? That would be cross platform compatible AFAIK

Timestamp is already implemented. I modified the existing implementation.I did not consider replacing it with a completely new implementation.

If someone wants to experiment with other implementations, that's fine, of course. I don't plan on doing that here.

[Trott]

Another benefit to this change is that the doc files are linted even if there are failures in the "misc" files. If you look at the current lint results for #31976, you'll see that the errors in the misc files show up but then the linter bails out and it doesn't lint the doc file changes which also have lint issues. I'd prefer it always report all the problems, which will be the case with this change.

[Trott]

Landed in 751c240