JuliaFormatter & workflow

[st--]

Resolves#462. Supersedes #463.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #482 (ffddfe4) into master (834901e) will increase coverage by 0.07%.
The diff coverage is 82.79%.

@@ Coverage Diff @@## master #482 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 92.92% 93.00% +0.07% 
==========================================
Files 15 15 Lines 791 800 +9 ==========================================
+ Hits 735 744 +9 
Misses 56 56 

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/compat.jl	44.44% <0.00%> (ø)
src/config.jl	100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/ignore_derivatives.jl	75.00% <0.00%> (ø)
src/tangent_types/abstract_zero.jl	85.00% <33.33%> (ø)
src/tangent_types/notimplemented.jl	72.00% <66.66%> (+1.16%)	⬆️
src/rule_definition_tools.jl	96.27% <82.35%> (+0.09%)	⬆️
src/tangent_types/tangent.jl	84.37% <84.78%> (ø)
src/accumulation.jl	97.22% <100.00%> (ø)
src/projection.jl	98.15% <100.00%> (+0.03%)	⬆️
src/tangent_arithmetic.jl	96.42% <100.00%> (ø)
... and 1 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 834901e...ffddfe4. Read the comment docs.

[sethaxen]

I think we want to follow BlueStyle?

By default, JuliaFormatter uses its own style, not BlueStyle. Can you check in a .JuliaFormatter.toml containing just style = "blue" and then re-run JuliaFormatter?

Also, now would be a good time to add the BlueStyle badge to the ReadMe.

[mzgubic]

I did not review the .yml file.

IMO overall this is an improvement in readability, and I am ok to accept formatter dictatorship on a few cases where the current way of writing (e.g. aligning vertically) is more readable.

[oxinabox]

Thanks nice work.
We need to look at it again once it has been set to BlueStyle.

[st--]

I think we want to follow BlueStyle?

By default, JuliaFormatter uses its own style, not BlueStyle. Can you check in a .JuliaFormatter.toml containing just style = "blue" and then re-run JuliaFormatter?

Sure. In the end, I think it's more important to have an automatic formatter than what the style is, exactly.:)

[st--]

Also, now would be a good time to add the BlueStyle badge to the ReadMe.

There's one already:

[nickrobinson251]

personally, i am against having a formatter CI job, because in my experience it is more pain than it is worth (and i say that as both the biggest contributor to BlueStyle and the person who worked with Dom to have it added to JuliaFormatter.jl). But i am not one of the bigger contributors here so am happy enough to be out voted

I am neutral about running the formatter as a one-off over the existing code (it makes style a bit more consistent but interferes with gt blame), but if we are to do that we should use BlueStyle only (whereas this PR currently includes changes that makes the style "worse" (according to BlueStyles) because it also includes changes made first be a different style, so i think those should be removed before this is merged

[st--]

personally, i am against having a formatter CI job, because in my experience it is more pain than it is worth (and i say that as both the biggest contributor to BlueStyle and the person who worked with Dom to have it added to JuliaFormatter.jl). But i am not one of the bigger contributors here so am happy enough to be out voted

Personally, in my experience the pain from dealing with the autoformatter is much smaller than all the pain from arguments about style that are completely removed by having the autoformatter. But of course also happy for the core maintainers to vote as they see fit!

I am neutral about running the formatter as a one-off over the existing code (it makes style a bit more consistent

We can simply remove the formatter workflow from this PR again and just keep the formatting changes if you want to do that:)

but interferes with git blame),

A bit, but it's easy enough to "blame previous to this commit" (in the GitHub UI even easier than on the commandline):)

but if we are to do that we should use BlueStyle only

I've now removed all the changes from the previous format run, so its current state is BlueStyle changes only.

[st--]

@oxinabox@sethaxen it's now properly following BlueStyle. do you want to accept it as is now, or just the format changes minus github action workflow, or is there anything else you'd like to change about it ?

[oxinabox]

I don't think this change is required by BlueStyle.
But I don't think it is forbidden either,
It is fine

[oxinabox]

OK, this worked out better than I initially expected seeing the PR.
Good.

I think we can merge this once the outstanding comments are solved.
Of which there are not so many and they are not too bad.

Excellent. Very nice work

[st--]

Looks like the reviewdog doesn't actually make the suggestion for how to fix a line (so you could simply accept the review suggestion, instead of having to fix it manually). Not sure why that is - github actions permissions lacking ?

[oxinabox]

thanks