Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update build scripts to use improved settings #286

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 31, 2022
Merged

Conversation

jablko
Copy link
Contributor

@jablko jablko commented Mar 30, 2022

Initial checklist

  • I read the support docs
  • I read the contributing guide
  • I agree to follow the code of conduct
  • I searched issues and couldn’t find anything (or linked relevant results below)
  • If applicable, I’ve added docs and tests

Description of changes

I'm in favor of minimizing the #279 (review) diffs, I'm also in favor of disambiguating setting and settings. This PR extracts cosmetic changes from #279 (comment) --- I propose merging this one and then rebasing #279, to make it smaller?

@github-actions github-actions bot added the 👋 phase/new Post is being triaged automatically label Mar 30, 2022
@github-actions

This comment has been minimized.

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Mar 30, 2022

Codecov Report

Merging #286 (99f9ac1) into main (411f616) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##              main      #286    +/-   ##
==========================================
  Coverage   100.00%   100.00%            
==========================================
  Files           73        73            
  Lines         7473      8447   +974     
==========================================
+ Hits          7473      8447   +974     
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
packages/remark-lint-strong-marker/index.js 100.00% <ø> (ø)
packages/remark-lint-table-cell-padding/index.js 100.00% <ø> (ø)
packages/remark-lint-table-pipe-alignment/index.js 100.00% <ø> (ø)
packages/remark-lint-table-pipes/index.js 100.00% <ø> (ø)
...s/remark-lint-unordered-list-marker-style/index.js 100.00% <ø> (ø)
packages/unified-lint-rule/lib/index.js 100.00% <ø> (ø)
script/util/rule.js 100.00% <ø> (ø)
...ckages/remark-lint-blockquote-indentation/index.js 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...ages/remark-lint-checkbox-character-style/index.js 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...kages/remark-lint-checkbox-content-indent/index.js 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
... and 66 more

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 0f6bb40...99f9ac1. Read the comment docs.

@@ -42,15 +42,15 @@
* @copyright 2015 Titus Wormer
* @license MIT
* @example
* {"name": "ok.md", "setting": 4}
* {"name": "ok.md", "config": 4}
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I noticed that we currently use config in all the readmes:

value: 'unified().use(' + camelcased + '[, config])'

What do you think about replacing setting with that?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yeah sure!

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks!

@@ -157,16 +157,16 @@ Due to this, it’s recommended to configure this rule with `2`.

##### `ok.md`

When configured with `2`.
When configured with `4`.
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I also wrapped {config} in an object. It's the tests key, which changes the order of some examples, because the tests JS object isn't order preserving: #279 (comment)

Before some examples were in numeric order, now they're in the order defined in the docblocks. Before the key was '4', now it's '{"config":4}'.

This is also a cosmetic change --- it extracts the change in example order from #279 (review). That PR changes the tests key from {config} -> {settings, config}.

@github-actions github-actions bot added 🤞 phase/open Post is being triaged manually and removed 👋 phase/new Post is being triaged automatically labels Mar 30, 2022
Copy link
Member

@wooorm wooorm left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Am I correct in seeing this PR as doing two things only (a. settings -> config, b. config -> {config}) and nothing else?
Or do I need to properly read everything to see if there’s something weird somewhere? 😅

@wooorm
Copy link
Member

wooorm commented Mar 31, 2022

I fixed the errors on main btw!

@jablko
Copy link
Contributor Author

jablko commented Mar 31, 2022

That's correct: setting -> config and config -> {config}, nothing else.

I fixed the errors on main btw!

Awesome thanks! 🙌 I'll remove the unist-util-position types commit now.

Copy link
Member

@wooorm wooorm left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

okay then!

@wooorm wooorm changed the title Disambiguate setting and settings Update build scripts to use improved settings Mar 31, 2022
@wooorm wooorm merged commit a9ef208 into remarkjs:main Mar 31, 2022
@github-actions

This comment has been minimized.

@wooorm wooorm added 🏗 area/tools This affects tooling 💪 phase/solved Post is done labels Mar 31, 2022
@wooorm
Copy link
Member

wooorm commented Mar 31, 2022

Thanks! :)

@github-actions github-actions bot removed the 🤞 phase/open Post is being triaged manually label Mar 31, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
🏗 area/tools This affects tooling 💪 phase/solved Post is done
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants