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

Add prettier config #123

Open
wants to merge 11 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Add prettier config #123

wants to merge 11 commits into from

Conversation

toger5
Copy link
Contributor

@toger5 toger5 commented Jan 23, 2025

This adds a prettier config.
Before this format on save changed a lot of lines.

.github/workflows/build.yaml Show resolved Hide resolved
.prettierrc Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
.eslintrc.js Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@toger5 toger5 requested a review from AndrewFerr January 23, 2025 17:47
@toger5
Copy link
Contributor Author

toger5 commented Jan 23, 2025

I did two commits one with the changes and one with just yarn prettier:format

Copy link

Quality Gate Failed Quality Gate failed

Failed conditions
64.2% Coverage on New Code (required ≥ 80%)

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

Copy link
Member

@AndrewFerr AndrewFerr left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

For some reason I'm able to get a slightly smaller diff by running Prettier on the original source:

git checkout master -- src/ test/ && yarn prettier:format && git add src/ test/

You can use it if you like.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I realize Element Call has a VSCode settings file too, but I'm not a fan of putting IDE config files in version control, as they can clash with personal development preferences.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

(To be clear, the request is to remove this file 🙂)

@AndrewFerr
Copy link
Member

It should also be made clear that the code coverage test fails simply because this PR touches most source/test files, and the code coverage %age of the whole codebase is lower than the minimum per-PR coverage requirement...meaning 1) this is a false-positive and 2) code coverage should eventually be improved in general so this won't be an issue anymore!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants