Add pre-commit hook

[LuisDuarte1]

Closes #854

Review checklist

• Terms and conditions reflect the current change
• Contains enough appropriate tests
• If aimed at production, writes a new summary in whatsnew/whatsnew-pt-PT
• Properly adds an entry in changelog.md with the change
• If PR includes UI updates/additions, its description has screenshots
• Behavior is as expected
• Clean, well-structured code

[bdmendes]

This will format auto-generated dart files too. Is that the desired behaviour?
Also, what do you think of tackling #225 alongside this PR?

[LuisDuarte1]

This will format auto-generated dart files too. Is that the desired behaviour? Also, what do you think of tackling #225 alongside this PR?

Nice catch, i'll add it to the grep filter command. Creating a contributing.md seems a bit out of scope for this pr

[bdmendes]

Lgtm!

[Sirze01]

This will format auto-generated dart files too. Is that the desired behaviour? Also, what do you think of tackling #225 alongside this PR?

I think this should be the desired behaviour; if those are indeed dart files, they should be following the standard formatting convention. This would also simplify the hook as you would only need to run the formatter in the /lib directory. (I have no idea if the savings of only analyzing changed files are worth it, but it is already done so...)
Another aspect I think you may have overlooked is the configuration of the linting action; isn't the analyzer looking for all dart files?

[LuisDuarte1]

This will format auto-generated dart files too. Is that the desired behaviour? Also, what do you think of tackling #225 alongside this PR?

I think this should be the desired behaviour; if those are indeed dart files, they should be following the standard formatting convention. This would also simplify the hook as you would only need to run the formatter in the /lib directory. (I have no idea if the savings of only analyzing changed files are worth it, but it is already done so...) Another aspect I think you may have overlooked is the configuration of the linting action; isn't the analyzer looking for all dart files?

Because they are auto generated they shouldn't be changed at all, even though they can conflict with our formatting standards, because they can and probably will regenerate themselves (and be an hassle every time you save them or you commit them).

[Sirze01]

This will format auto-generated dart files too. Is that the desired behaviour? Also, what do you think of tackling #225 alongside this PR?

I think this should be the desired behaviour; if those are indeed dart files, they should be following the standard formatting convention. This would also simplify the hook as you would only need to run the formatter in the /lib directory. (I have no idea if the savings of only analyzing changed files are worth it, but it is already done so...) Another aspect I think you may have overlooked is the configuration of the linting action; isn't the analyzer looking for all dart files?

Because they are auto generated they shouldn't be changed at all, even though they can conflict with our formatting standards, because they can and probably will regenerate themselves (and be an hassle every time you save them or you commit them).

In that case, take a look at the linting config to make sure those files are ignored.

[LuisDuarte1]

In that case, take a look at the linting config to make sure those files are ignored.

It's not on develop, but #863 already ignores them

[Sirze01]

It's not on develop, but #863 already ignores them

That's great and also needed, but I meant if the formatting check action is ignoring the .g.dart files.

[LuisDuarte1]

That's great and also needed, but I meant if the formatting check action is ignoring the .g.dart files.

Nice catch! Changed the action to only include user created files

[thePeras]

Running the .sh script doesn't work if there is no hooks folder inside .git folder.
I created the folder, and works fine. Can the .sh create the folder automatically?

Also, the .sh is in the git changed files because it changed the mode from 100644 to 100755. Any idea to ignore that?

[LuisDuarte1]

Running the .sh script doesn't work if there is no hooks folder inside .git folder. I created the folder, and works fine. Can the .sh create the folder automatically?

Also, the .sh is in the git changed files because it changed the mode from 100644 to 100755. Any idea to ignore that?

I can't seem to replicate this, on my pc, according to the git documentation (link) it automatically populates .git/hooks directory with sample hooks, so the directory is automatically created. I can't also replicate the .sh changed mode on linux. I'm using git version 2.40.1

[LuisDuarte1]

I can track down the file mode change since I use an NTFS partition on a linux distro (in order to work on both enviroments) git sets git config core.filemode to false (as it can be explained here) because NTFS on linux has always the executable permission on. I'll update it's index manually

[LuisDuarte1]

It seems, upon further research that there are some git installations that don't populate the .git/hooks folder automatically because they have no default templates or there are some older versions/other git clients that don't do this, so I've added a failsafe, just in case this happens again

[Sirze01]

Nicely done!