chore: add pre-commit hook for conventional commit verification

[alexhancock]

Automatically verify commits follow the https://www.conventionalcommits.org/en/v1.0.0/ format.

We get a lot of PRs with commits that do not follow the format, and it creates unnecessary cycles during code review. This PR installs a pre-commit hook on the first cargo build and then uses it when you commit.

Example:

13:09:41 ~/Development/rust-sdk alexhancock/pre-commit-lint* $ git commit -am "something invalid"
ERROR: Commit message does not follow conventional commit format.
Expected format: <type>(<scope>): <description>
Valid types: build, chore, ci, docs, feat, fix, perf, refactor, revert, style, test
Examples:
feat: add new feature
fix(parser): resolve parsing issue
docs: update README
Your commit message:
something invalid

[jamadeo]

Nice, yes this will improve things.

Looks like CI calls npx commitlint -- should this do the same?

[alexhancock]

@jamadeo I tried a version that does that but if we want to do local packages it would require adding package.json, assuming a node installation etc. It added a lot more boilerplate to the project.

There is maybe a version of that approach which just uses npx and doesn't do the linting if it's not available. I'll spike on that as it would be good to have the consistency.

[alexhancock]

@jamadeo Came up with a better version which uses commitlint if node is available, and falls back to a more basic implementation if not.

[alexhancock]

Automatically verify commits follow the https://www.conventionalcommits.org/en/v1.0.0/ format.

We get a lot of PRs with commits that do not follow the format, and it creates unnecessary cycles during code review. This PR installs a pre-commit hook on the first cargo build and then uses it when you commit.

Example:

13:09:41 ~/Development/rust-sdk alexhancock/pre-commit-lint* $ git commit -am "something invalid"
ERROR: Commit message does not follow conventional commit format.
Expected format: <type>(<scope>): <description>
Valid types: build, chore, ci, docs, feat, fix, perf, refactor, revert, style, test
Examples:
feat: add new feature
fix(parser): resolve parsing issue
docs: update README
Your commit message:
something invalid

[jamadeo]

Nice, yes this will improve things.

Looks like CI calls npx commitlint -- should this do the same?

[alexhancock]

@jamadeo I tried a version that does that but if we want to do local packages it would require adding package.json, assuming a node installation etc. It added a lot more boilerplate to the project.

There is maybe a version of that approach which just uses npx and doesn't do the linting if it's not available. I'll spike on that as it would be good to have the consistency.

[alexhancock]

@jamadeo Came up with a better version which uses commitlint if node is available, and falls back to a more basic implementation if not.

[alexhancock]

Automatically verify commits follow the https://www.conventionalcommits.org/en/v1.0.0/ format.

We get a lot of PRs with commits that do not follow the format, and it creates unnecessary cycles during code review. This PR installs a pre-commit hook on the first cargo build and then uses it when you commit.

Example:

13:09:41 ~/Development/rust-sdk alexhancock/pre-commit-lint* $ git commit -am "something invalid"
ERROR: Commit message does not follow conventional commit format.
Expected format: <type>(<scope>): <description>
Valid types: build, chore, ci, docs, feat, fix, perf, refactor, revert, style, test
Examples:
feat: add new feature
fix(parser): resolve parsing issue
docs: update README
Your commit message:
something invalid

[jamadeo]

Nice, yes this will improve things.

Looks like CI calls npx commitlint -- should this do the same?

[alexhancock]

@jamadeo I tried a version that does that but if we want to do local packages it would require adding package.json, assuming a node installation etc. It added a lot more boilerplate to the project.

There is maybe a version of that approach which just uses npx and doesn't do the linting if it's not available. I'll spike on that as it would be good to have the consistency.

[alexhancock]

@jamadeo Came up with a better version which uses commitlint if node is available, and falls back to a more basic implementation if not.

[alexhancock]

Automatically verify commits follow the https://www.conventionalcommits.org/en/v1.0.0/ format.

We get a lot of PRs with commits that do not follow the format, and it creates unnecessary cycles during code review. This PR installs a pre-commit hook on the first cargo build and then uses it when you commit.

Example:

13:09:41 ~/Development/rust-sdk alexhancock/pre-commit-lint* $ git commit -am "something invalid"
ERROR: Commit message does not follow conventional commit format.
Expected format: <type>(<scope>): <description>
Valid types: build, chore, ci, docs, feat, fix, perf, refactor, revert, style, test
Examples:
feat: add new feature
fix(parser): resolve parsing issue
docs: update README
Your commit message:
something invalid

[jamadeo]

Nice, yes this will improve things.

Looks like CI calls npx commitlint -- should this do the same?

[alexhancock]

@jamadeo I tried a version that does that but if we want to do local packages it would require adding package.json, assuming a node installation etc. It added a lot more boilerplate to the project.

There is maybe a version of that approach which just uses npx and doesn't do the linting if it's not available. I'll spike on that as it would be good to have the consistency.

[alexhancock]

@jamadeo Came up with a better version which uses commitlint if node is available, and falls back to a more basic implementation if not.

[alexhancock]

Automatically verify commits follow the https://www.conventionalcommits.org/en/v1.0.0/ format.

We get a lot of PRs with commits that do not follow the format, and it creates unnecessary cycles during code review. This PR installs a pre-commit hook on the first cargo build and then uses it when you commit.

Example:

13:09:41 ~/Development/rust-sdk alexhancock/pre-commit-lint* $ git commit -am "something invalid"
ERROR: Commit message does not follow conventional commit format.
Expected format: <type>(<scope>): <description>
Valid types: build, chore, ci, docs, feat, fix, perf, refactor, revert, style, test
Examples:
feat: add new feature
fix(parser): resolve parsing issue
docs: update README
Your commit message:
something invalid

[jamadeo]

Nice, yes this will improve things.

Looks like CI calls npx commitlint -- should this do the same?

[alexhancock]

@jamadeo I tried a version that does that but if we want to do local packages it would require adding package.json, assuming a node installation etc. It added a lot more boilerplate to the project.

There is maybe a version of that approach which just uses npx and doesn't do the linting if it's not available. I'll spike on that as it would be good to have the consistency.

[alexhancock]

@jamadeo Came up with a better version which uses commitlint if node is available, and falls back to a more basic implementation if not.

[alexhancock]

Automatically verify commits follow the https://www.conventionalcommits.org/en/v1.0.0/ format.

We get a lot of PRs with commits that do not follow the format, and it creates unnecessary cycles during code review. This PR installs a pre-commit hook on the first cargo build and then uses it when you commit.

Example:

13:09:41 ~/Development/rust-sdk alexhancock/pre-commit-lint* $ git commit -am "something invalid"
ERROR: Commit message does not follow conventional commit format.
Expected format: <type>(<scope>): <description>
Valid types: build, chore, ci, docs, feat, fix, perf, refactor, revert, style, test
Examples:
feat: add new feature
fix(parser): resolve parsing issue
docs: update README
Your commit message:
something invalid

[jamadeo]

Nice, yes this will improve things.

Looks like CI calls npx commitlint -- should this do the same?

[alexhancock]

@jamadeo I tried a version that does that but if we want to do local packages it would require adding package.json, assuming a node installation etc. It added a lot more boilerplate to the project.

There is maybe a version of that approach which just uses npx and doesn't do the linting if it's not available. I'll spike on that as it would be good to have the consistency.

[alexhancock]

@jamadeo Came up with a better version which uses commitlint if node is available, and falls back to a more basic implementation if not.

[alexhancock]

Automatically verify commits follow the https://www.conventionalcommits.org/en/v1.0.0/ format.

We get a lot of PRs with commits that do not follow the format, and it creates unnecessary cycles during code review. This PR installs a pre-commit hook on the first cargo build and then uses it when you commit.

Example:

13:09:41 ~/Development/rust-sdk alexhancock/pre-commit-lint* $ git commit -am "something invalid"
ERROR: Commit message does not follow conventional commit format.
Expected format: <type>(<scope>): <description>
Valid types: build, chore, ci, docs, feat, fix, perf, refactor, revert, style, test
Examples:
feat: add new feature
fix(parser): resolve parsing issue
docs: update README
Your commit message:
something invalid

[jamadeo]

Nice, yes this will improve things.

Looks like CI calls npx commitlint -- should this do the same?

[alexhancock]

@jamadeo I tried a version that does that but if we want to do local packages it would require adding package.json, assuming a node installation etc. It added a lot more boilerplate to the project.

There is maybe a version of that approach which just uses npx and doesn't do the linting if it's not available. I'll spike on that as it would be good to have the consistency.

[alexhancock]

@jamadeo Came up with a better version which uses commitlint if node is available, and falls back to a more basic implementation if not.