Get rid of elm-analyse.json

[razzeee]

We should get rid of the file and switch to our own file format.

One idea would be to use the elm-tooling.json to handle these settings.

@lydell

[lydell]

I’m working on a tool myself (not public yet) that needs some config in elm-tooling.json. I’m doing it like this:

{
  "tools": {
    "elm": "0.19.1"
  },
  "x-elm-watch": {
    "whatever": "I want"
  }
}

I’m going to update elm-tooling validate to not complain about x-foo keys.

Maybe you can use that? My idea is that tooling authors can use this to get started, and then maybe standardize stuff later if it makes sense.

[razzeee]

Sounds fine for me.

[razzeee]

Then again, this will force users, that still use elm-analyse in their CI to maintain two files in sync.

The question is, are many people still using elm-analyse?

[lydell]

One could also ask the question: Does this create any benefit at all for end users, or are we just going to cause hassle for them having to move stuff from elm-analyse.json to elm-tooling.json?

It might feel cleaner for us, but maybe this is a historical quirk that doesn’t matter much. People have their elm-analyse.json set up and that works (if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it).

[razzeee]

I think the problem is, that we're missing docs. As it's unclear which rules we support and what they do. Simon Lydell ***@***.***> schrieb am Sa., 21. Aug. 2021, 14:45:

…

One could also ask the question: Does this create any benefit at all for end users, or are we just going to cause hassle for them having to move stuff from elm-analyse.json to elm-tooling.json? It might feel cleaner for us, but maybe this is a historical quirk that doesn’t matter much. People have their elm-analyse.json set up and that works (if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it). — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#616 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABNLEZEDASULBBQHIWXF74LT56NYDANCNFSM5AM3R6EA> .