Closed jayvdb closed 1 year ago
I'd be fine with having the Taplo formatter check running in CI.
I'll admit I have a harder time getting excited about cargo-make. Maybe I'm just a cranky traditionalist, and I'll certainly admit that GNU Make is getting long in the tooth in a lot of areas, but cargo-make's way of specifying the commands to run feels like a step backwards -- awkward compared to just writing the command the same way you would in a shell. The command invocation looks awkward to me too since as far as I can tell from a brief peruse through the docs there's no standard naming for the tasks file, so it has to be specified on the command-line each time?
The default name is Makefile.toml
- ya, I can see that the docs about that are confusing. I'll raise that upstream.
The way to specify commands is quite verbose. Anyway, I'll do a PR at some point, not right now, with no concerns if you reject it.
This is the result of running
cargo make format-toml
, which invokes https://github.com/sagiegurari/cargo-make , which invokes https://crates.io/crates/taplo-cli , which has a config file that can be used to alter the way toml files are formatting.I like to enable
reorder_keys = true
, but that also alpha orders the[package]
metadata section, and I've found that is an acquired taste.I am happy to set up CI to enforce this, and even happier to set up a PR to replace
Makefile
withMakefile.toml
, which has lots of Rust-specific advantages in addition to not using tabs.