Skip to content

ci: added treefmt workflow to gha and removed from buildbot #3611

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

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

c4patino
Copy link
Contributor

@c4patino c4patino commented Aug 9, 2025

Seemed like low hanging fruit in #3561

  • Migrates the treefmt foramtting check from buildbot to a dedicated Github Actions workflow.
  • Removes the buildbot treefmt check from flake/dev/fmt.nix to avoid duplicate runs with the new formatter.

Copy link
Member

@MattSturgeon MattSturgeon left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for working on this!

@c4patino c4patino force-pushed the ci/treefmt branch 4 times, most recently from a6bfab9 to bf6ca2f Compare August 9, 2025 14:12
@c4patino c4patino requested a review from MattSturgeon August 9, 2025 14:17
@c4patino
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi @MattSturgeon is there anything else that you need on this?

Copy link
Member

@MattSturgeon MattSturgeon left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is complicated a little by merge queues and "required status checks", however I'm fine merging this initially without adding it as a "required" check.

#3628 can then be responsible for implementing the required checks for PRs and merge queues.

A few minor things to address or discuss below, then I think we can get this merged.

Thanks again!


jobs:
treefmt:
name: Check formatting with treefmt
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This name shows up in the status check list as Workflow name / Job name; in this case Formatting / Check formatting with treefmt.

Bike-shedding the names doesn't block this PR, because we can change them at any time in other PRs. But my personal preference would be to be less verbose and avoid redundancy between workflow & job names.

How about Formatting / treefmt or Lint / formatting or Check / Formatting?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

switching to lint / treefmt. forgot that those show up as really long. i've had problems with that before when using reusable workflows.

Copy link
Member

@MattSturgeon MattSturgeon Aug 18, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

FYI you renamed the job id to lint, not the workflow name. The workflow name: Formatting is at the top of the file 🙃 (and should probably be somewhat in-sync with the actual filename, currently treefmt.yml, too).

Also, if the job name and id are the same, there's no need to set its name explicitly.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@c4patino c4patino Aug 18, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

thats embarassing. fixed. it should just be lint / treefmt now.

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.

3 participants