Is it config.yaml or settings.yml?

[stuartmac]

@warownia1 did you rename the main configuration file from config.yaml to settings.yml at some point?

My Slivka instance was initialised with a settings.yml file, and I see this in the project_template in the repository, but the documentation refers to config.yaml. Here for example: https://bartongroup.github.io/slivka/specification.html.

Should the documentation be updated?

[warownia1]

Good spot, maybe I should keep it more consistent. But, the very first section where the config.yaml file is introduced writes:

"It can alternatively be named settings.yaml and either .yaml or .yml extension is allowed."

On Tue, 9 Jan 2024 at 16:27, Stuart MacGowan @.***> wrote:

@warownia1 https://github.com/warownia1 did you rename the main configuration file from config.yaml to settings.yml at some point?

My Slivka instance was initialised with a settings.yml file, and I see this in the project_template in the repository, but the documentation refers to config.yaml. Here for example: https://bartongroup.github.io/slivka/specification.html.

Should the documentation be updated?

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/bartongroup/slivka/issues/138, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADAMLDQPXZVZIE77NLNYMIDYNVOXRAVCNFSM6AAAAABBTJAZCSVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43ASLTON2WKOZSGA3TENRQGE2TINA . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

[stuartmac]

I think consistency is key. Seems like an example where flexibility comes with an overhead that might not be worth it.

If possible I'd suggest having a single allowed name for this file, but if you need to maintain backwards compatibility, maybe adding an inline comment to the project structure tree in the docs can help? Like below:

<project-root>/
├── config.yaml  # or settings.yaml
├── manage.py
├── wsgi.py
├── scripts/
│  ├── example.py
│  └── selectors.py
├── services/
│  └── example.service.yaml
└── static/
   ├── openapi.yaml
   └── redoc-index.html