CI: Add format check

[michalhosna]

Add --check flag to scripts/format.sh rather than calling clang-format
directly in ci.yml, so the set of matched files stays consistent between
local formatting and CI verification.

Replace rg with find in the script to avoid requiring ripgrep in CI.

Rename workflow from "build" to "ci" to match the filename and reflect
that it now covers more than building.

The format job uses ubuntu-24.04 (unlike the build jobs) to get a
reasonably modern clang-format, even though we target older compilers
for building.

---

This change is 

[michalhosna]

+reviewer:@gmarzot +reviewer:@afrind

[afrind]

Can we make format.sh a commit hook too?

@afrind reviewed 2 files and all commit messages, and made 1 comment.
Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on gmarzot).

[michalhosna]

Git commit hooks are local only (AFAIK).

We can commit something like .githooks/ (no special git meaning, just a normal folder), and everyone must locally set that as a hook folder git config core.hooksPath .githooks.

But then you cannot add your local Git hooks easily. There are tools that can manage that, and you can write a local wrapper to merge .githooks and your hooks.

Given that there is no fully automated out-of-the-box way. I would suggest everyone set their hooks; that's easy with the scripts we already provide:

ln -s ../../scripts/format.sh .git/hooks/pre-commit

Should I add that to a readme? (Do people read that?)

@michalhosna made 1 comment.
Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on gmarzot).

[gmarzot]

.github/workflows/ci.yml line 1 at r1 (raw file):

name: ci

objection to "ci" it is too general (so was build and not complete) - i spent some time on picking descriptive names for workflow files, actions and job names. check out the latest and we can discuss

[gmarzot]

.github/workflows/ci.yml line 20 at r1 (raw file):

      - name: Check formatting
        run: bash scripts/format.sh --check

lgtm

[gmarzot]

.github/workflows/ci.yml line 1 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, gmarzot (Giovanni Marzot) wrote…

objection to "ci" it is too general (so was build and not complete) - i spent some time on picking descriptive names for workflow files, actions and job names. check out the latest and we can discuss

Still there. ci.yml exists on main in o-rly. PR #40 renames the workflow name inside the file from build to verify, but the filename itself stays ci.yml.

In moxygen we renamed the file (omoq-ci.yml → omoq-verify.yml). In o-rly the file was never renamed.

[gmarzot]

.github/workflows/ci.yml line 1 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, gmarzot (Giovanni Marzot) wrote…

Still there. ci.yml exists on main in o-rly. PR #40 renames the workflow name inside the file from build to verify, but the filename itself stays ci.yml.

In moxygen we renamed the file (omoq-ci.yml → omoq-verify.yml). In o-rly the file was never renamed.

hoping we can follow the pattern from moxygen

[michalhosna]

@michalhosna made 2 comments, resolved 1 discussion, and dismissed @gmarzot from a discussion.
Reviewable status: 0 of 3 files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on afrind and gmarzot).

---

.github/workflows/ci.yml line 1 at r1 (raw file):
Reverted.

Still there.
We yeah, I didn't say its fixed between your two comments. Not sure where the confusion is coming from. Did I do something wrong?

---

a discussion (no related file):
Okay, clang-format breaks stuff with every version :(. So we need to fix on one.
I didn't go with what's in ubuntu-22, as that's fairly old and not supporting stuff we currently have in .clang-format. I also didn't really want to go with cutting-edge if it isn't easily avaible somewhere. 19. seems like a helthy middle ground.

[afrind]

Sure, just tell me and my agent what to do

@afrind reviewed 3 files and all commit messages, made 1 comment, and resolved 1 discussion.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on gmarzot).

[gmarzot]

.github/workflows/ci.yml line 1 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, michalhosna (Michal Hošna) wrote…

Reverted.

Still there.
We yeah, I didn't say its fixed between your two comments. Not sure where the confusion is coming from. Did I do something wrong?

no just over explaining

[gmarzot]

@gmarzot reviewed 3 files and all commit messages, and resolved 1 discussion.
Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on michalhosna).