-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 69
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
Fix JSON file formatting #784
Conversation
Should this be marked as |
I suspect it doesn't need that. Here's a bit of the docs which gives some explanation, but in short the |
@depial, do you have authority to approve this, or do we need a cross-track-maintainer? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
lgtm
thanks! |
Cheers! If anything else is sufficiently reviewed that we can merge, you can feel free to let me know. I'm still not used to having merging powers, so I'm still a little hesitant to use them unprompted |
I know the feeling! |
Edit: Found it... There is an extra Leap in @colinleach I've just noticed that there seems to be two versions of the Leap exercise on the website. Can you see this too or is it something with my browser? From what I can tell, they are clones, with the only difference I can see being the blurb (though I only made a cursory exploration). Even all of the solutions seem to be the same (at least I assume they are the same since they both have 69 pages of solutions and the same top solutions) I can't see anything in the Comparative weirdness:
|
This is a mess, not of our making. If you look at it in an incognito window, everything is good. As maintainers, we're seeing a Leap clone because the previous maintainers wanted to use this as a Concept exercise. This is strictly forbidden by Jeremy, who insists on keeping Concept and Practice exercises totally separate. I hear rumors that there have been bad-tempered arguments about this in the past, which he refuses to repeat (and he's the CEO, so tends to have the last word). The files are in |
Now that you mention that, it reminds me of an open PR #365. It looks like they planned to rename it and then deprecate it, but that was almost 3 1/2 years ago. I don't know how much of that process is still relevant (e.g. Do we have to deprecate something or can we simply remove it?). Also, the file mentioned in the PR, |
Just deleting it should be OK. Closing #365 may also be a good idea. |
I'll try to take a look at doing that tomorrow.
I feel like there's quite a few old PRs that are probably able to be closed as obsolete, but I'm not sure if it's the norm to keep them around for some reason |
This is purely the result of running
bin/configlet fmt -u -y
.The changes are largely cosmetic. The most important thing is they remove the noise from
configlet fmt
output, which should now show any new problems without having to scroll through 79 old ones.