Skip to content

feat(manifest): add oxfmt - #1967

Merged
taiki-e merged 2 commits into
taiki-e:mainfrom
rami3l:feat/oxfmt
Aug 15, 2026
Merged

feat(manifest): add oxfmt#1967
taiki-e merged 2 commits into
taiki-e:mainfrom
rami3l:feat/oxfmt

Conversation

@rami3l

@rami3l rami3l commented Aug 13, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

This PR adds oxfmt to the set of supported tools.

Background

Thank you very much for making this action! In the current rustup CI, we are already using it to install taplo. However, rustup also has a website, which requires consistent frontend formatting in addition to TOML style checks.

Originally requested in rust-lang/rustup#5013 (comment), this PR adds oxfmt support so that it can also be installed directly in a similar fashion without using npx.

@rami3l

rami3l commented Aug 13, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Also, if one wants to add oxlint it should be one search-replace away.

@rami3l
rami3l force-pushed the feat/oxfmt branch 3 times, most recently from b96ecd3 to 2ac9c8a Compare August 14, 2026 07:23
@rami3l

rami3l commented Aug 14, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

The CI should be green now.

PS: The manifest gen CI error seems unrelated to this particular change.

@taiki-e taiki-e left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks!

@taiki-e
taiki-e merged commit 57e465d into taiki-e:main Aug 15, 2026
81 checks passed
@rami3l
rami3l deleted the feat/oxfmt branch August 15, 2026 15:22
@taiki-e

taiki-e commented Aug 15, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Published in 2.86.0.

@rami3l

rami3l commented Aug 15, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@taiki-e Thanks for the quick response and I'm using the new release now!

I have a minor concern though: I can install the tool using your action but the binary name I use has to be oxfmt-x86_64-unknown-linux-musl (because that's what they have from the release archives) which might be slightly inconvenient (it's CI-only and we have many ways to work around it afterwards, so no big deal though). Is this already handled by this project somewhere that I unfortunately overlooked, or is this kind of slight optimization something this project wants to support?

Many thanks in advance :)

@taiki-e taiki-e mentioned this pull request Aug 15, 2026
@taiki-e

taiki-e commented Aug 15, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Ah, that's a good catch. Filed #1969 to fix it.

@taiki-e

taiki-e commented Aug 15, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Published the fix in 2.86.1.

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