feat: description missing lint rule

[adthrasher]

This pull request adds a new rule to wdl-lint.

• Rule Name: DescriptionMissing

This rule ensures that each meta section includes a description keyword.

Before submitting this PR, please make sure:

• You have added a few sentences describing the PR here.
• You have added yourself or the appropriate individual as the assignee.
• You have added at least one relevant code reviewer to the PR.
• Your code builds clean without any errors or warnings.
• You have added an entry to the relevant CHANGELOG.md (see
  ["keep a changelog"] for more information).
• Your commit messages follow the [conventional commit] style.

Rule specific checks:

• You have added the rule as an entry within RULES.md.
• You have added the rule to the rules() function in wdl-lint/src/lib.rs.
• You have added a test cases in wdl-lint/tests/lints that covers every
  possible diagnostic emitted for the rule within the file where the rule
  is implemented.
• You have run wdl-gauntlet --refresh to ensure that there are no
  unintended changes to the baseline configuration file (Gauntlet.toml).
• You have run wdl-gauntlet --refresh --arena to ensure that all of the
  rules added/removed are now reflected in the baseline configuration file
  (Arena.toml).

[a-frantz]

So this lint doesn't fire if there is no meta section, right? Are we sure that's the right behavior? Presumably sometime soon we're going to implement a lint for "must have a meta section". Should that be handled all at once?

[adthrasher]

So this lint doesn't fire if there is no meta section, right? Are we sure that's the right behavior? Presumably sometime soon we're going to implement a lint for "must have a meta section". Should that be handled all at once?

@a-frantz - I think you're already handling that case here: https://github.com/stjude-rust-labs/wdl/blob/main/wdl-lint/src/rules/missing_metas.rs

[a-frantz]

So this lint doesn't fire if there is no meta section, right? Are we sure that's the right behavior? Presumably sometime soon we're going to implement a lint for "must have a meta section". Should that be handled all at once?

@a-frantz - I think you're already handling that case here: https://github.com/stjude-rust-labs/wdl/blob/main/wdl-lint/src/rules/missing_metas.rs

Right, I forgot about that 🤦 . But should we consolidate these rules somehow? Maybe I'm over complicating things, but I'm concerned with the case that a user gets the MissingMetas lint, thinks they've "fixed" their code by adding metas, and then they receive your new lint because they did it "wrong". Is that two step process annoying?

[adthrasher]

So this lint doesn't fire if there is no meta section, right? Are we sure that's the right behavior? Presumably sometime soon we're going to implement a lint for "must have a meta section". Should that be handled all at once?

@a-frantz - I think you're already handling that case here: https://github.com/stjude-rust-labs/wdl/blob/main/wdl-lint/src/rules/missing_metas.rs

Right, I forgot about that 🤦 . But should we consolidate these rules somehow? Maybe I'm over complicating things, but I'm concerned with the case that a user gets the MissingMetas lint, thinks they've "fixed" their code by adding metas, and then they receive your new lint because they did it "wrong". Is that two step process annoying?

I'm not sure it matters. If we fold it into the MissingMetas rule, presumably you wouldn't flag the missing description as well. We've been avoiding giving repetitive warnings. Then once meta exists, you'd get the missing description warning.

[adthrasher]

So this lint doesn't fire if there is no meta section, right? Are we sure that's the right behavior? Presumably sometime soon we're going to implement a lint for "must have a meta section". Should that be handled all at once?

@a-frantz - I think you're already handling that case here: https://github.com/stjude-rust-labs/wdl/blob/main/wdl-lint/src/rules/missing_metas.rs

Right, I forgot about that 🤦 . But should we consolidate these rules somehow? Maybe I'm over complicating things, but I'm concerned with the case that a user gets the MissingMetas lint, thinks they've "fixed" their code by adding metas, and then they receive your new lint because they did it "wrong". Is that two step process annoying?

I'm not sure it matters. If we fold it into the MissingMetas rule, presumably you wouldn't flag the missing description as well. We've been avoiding giving repetitive warnings. Then once meta exists, you'd get the missing description warning.

Maybe MissingMetas could have .fix() updated to clarify to add a meta with a description field.

[a-frantz]

Yea good points. OOS for this PR, but another idea: can we link rules somehow? Like in the output of sprocket explain MissingMetas can we say "Also see DescriptionMissing"?

[adthrasher]

Yea good points. OOS for this PR, but another idea: can we link rules somehow? Like in the output of sprocket explain MissingMetas can we say "Also see DescriptionMissing"?

Just added #116 to track that issue.

[a-frantz]

Alright this should be good to merge then 🚀