editorconfig-vim VS reviewdog

Added support for EditorConfig, .env, and HOCON validation

There is always .editorconfig [1] to setup indent if you have a directory of files. In places where it really matters (Python) I'll always comment with what I've used.

[1] https://editorconfig.org/

.editorconfig helps maintain consistent coding styles for multiple developers working on the same project across various editors and IDEs. Find more information on the EditorConfig website if you’re curious.

These are tools that you need to add. But the most elemental code formatting is not here, it is in the widely supported .editorconfig file.

Hello,

Maybe you should check this project:

https://editorconfig.org/

Regards,

editorconfigchecker. A linter that checks files for compliance with editorconfig rules. Another linter that helps maintain consistency in the format of all files.

Oh, yeah, we had that issue too and solved it pretty successfully with `.editorconfig` (shareable between VScode and IntelliJ, https://editorconfig.org/) combined with `prettier`.

Each IDE is configured to:

- Not reformat code on its own

- Ignore whitespace

- Run `prettier` as a pre-commit hook

Those settings are saved to `.editorconfig` where possible, or to each IDE's repo-specific folder (e.g. `.idea`).

Then in theory each developer can use whatever IDE they want, whatever whitespace settings they want (tabs vs spaces), and the end code committed to the repo is still the same.

I am aware of .editorconfig, and one day that may be the correct answer but the specification does not support every element of the styles of both oss and css.

Does this mean I can completely get rid of this plugin?: https://github.com/editorconfig/editorconfig-vim

I build a general converter from SARIF to Reviewdog Diagnostic Format (RDFormat), then use Reviewdog to give suggested code changes as well as the context of the changes for PR reviewing.

I helped improve the Kubescape GitHub Actions fix suggestions code review process, where I created the workflow which works by collecting the SARIF (Static Analysis Results Interchange Format) file that kubescape generates. Then, with the help of HollowMan6/sarif4reviewdog, convert the SARIF file into RDFormat (Reviewdog Diagnostic Format) and generate reviews for code fix suggestions on GitHub Actions using Reviewdog. I also helped add the “fix" object support for the Kubescape-generated SARIF report.

Static analysis should be performed continuously by CI (Continuous Integration) to prevent unintentional inclusion of code. The JSON output schema is compatible with reviewdog and can be used as is in reviewdog.

Trigger reviewdog checks on a repository via GitLab webhook rather than CI job.

# parameters - op: add path: /spec/params/- value: name: report-file default: reportfile description: Report file with errors - op: add path: /spec/params/- value: name: format default: golint description: Format of error input from the task - op: add path: /spec/params/- value: name: reporter default: local description: Reporter type for reviewdog https://github.com/reviewdog/reviewdog#reporters - op: add path: /spec/params/- value: name: diff default: git diff FETCH_HEAD description: Diff command https://github.com/reviewdog/reviewdog#reporters # workspaces - op: add path: /spec/workspaces/- value: name: token description: | Workspace which contains a token file for Github Pull Request comments. Must have a token file with the Github API access token # steps - op: add path: /spec/steps/- value: name: reviewdog-report image: golangci/golangci-lint:v1.31-alpine # both have the same workspace name workingDir: $(workspaces.source.path) script: | #!/bin/sh set -ue wget -O - -q https://raw.githubusercontent.com/reviewdog/reviewdog/master/install.sh | sh -s -- -b $(go env GOPATH)/bin export REVIEWDOG_GITHUB_API_TOKEN=$(cat $(workspaces.token.path)/token) cat $(params.reportfile) | reviewdog -f=$(params.format) -diff="$(params.diff)"

In reference article, use prettier to format the markdown and the code snippets. I implement a text review using textlint and reviewdog in addition to that.

JetBrains Qodana is one option, but currently requires glue code to map the findings to MR comments. I'm using reviewdog for it but I'm hoping they'll eventually fix it to have native integration

I'm trying to make a GitHub action which automatically runs tsc to find TypeScript errors. Those errors should be annotated inline in the PR/Commits. I found reviewdog, which should work perfectly for this - but I played around with that for about 4 hours now and can't seem to get it to report errors successfully. tsc exits with code 2, but reviewdog still says that everything went fine. So I'm trying to find another solution for this, has anyone here done this before? For comparison, I managed to do the same thing with ESLint by adding a custom formatter to the eslint command (-f param),‍ which then gets automatically picked up by the GitHub action - but I can't find something similar for tsc..

I used ReviewDog to wire in Qodana results, so I hear you about wishing it was built in, but it is achievable: https://github.com/reviewdog/reviewdog#reporter-gitlab-merge...

Based on my contact with GitLab's built-in other scanning tools, I wouldn't trust their vuln management further than I could throw it, so you're likely not missing much on that front