gomodifytags VS Task

gomodifytags

https://github.com/fatih/gomodifytags - generate or modify struct tags

I suspect it's because Go's general philosophy is that it's better to be verbose and explicit (than terse and magical). Probably falls under "clear is better than clever" from Rob Pike's Go Proverbs: http://go-proverbs.github.io/

I think if this feature was added, it would not be with struct tags, but with an Encoder.SetFieldTransform(json.SnakeCase) or similar setting.

That might be quite a nice feature, actually. You could provide your own function to transform names when marshaling, and for unmarshaling it would strip punctuation and match case insensitively (because it's hard to do the reverse transform, for example should user_id go to UserId or UserID, and if the latter, how does the transform know?).

In any case, it seems like an issue was opened proposing something like that a couple of years ago (https://github.com/golang/go/issues/23027), and Russ Cox responded that the JSON package is basically done, but you could either fork it and add the feature, or use a tool that modifies struct tags like https://github.com/fatih/gomodifytags

So many tools in this space! This one looks a little bit like go-task, but it seems maybe better for production workflows because if timeout support, while go-task seems more aimed to command line work/makefile replacement.

—-

https://github.com/go-task/task

View on GitHub

A similar tool is `task` https://taskfile.dev/ . It is quite capable and also a single executable. I've grown to quite like it.

check out tasks - a bit of a learning curve but arguably more powerful imo

That's when I came across taskfile.dev. Task is an automation tool designed to be more accessible than other options, such as GNU Make.

Full disclosure, I did not review Conda or Hatch fully. Not that there is anything explicitly wrong with either of them. Conda is too specific to the scientific community for my general taste. Hatch seems to go well with Conda and also uses the PyProject manifest as well. It's nice that it gives you several built in tools, similar to commit hooks, but I tend to like to roll my own via a Taskfile and run them with Poetry.

Taskfile is a tool for streamlining repetitive development tasks. It helps automate activities like building, testing, and deploying applications. Unlike Makefile, Taskfile uses YAML for configuration, making it more readable and user-friendly.

9. We test everything with another promotion which runs make targets which build docker containers to run python scripts (pytest)

This is also built by a complicated web of wildcarded makefile targets, which need to be interoperable and support a few if/else cases for specific components.

My plan is to migrate all of this to something simpler and more straightforward, or at least more maintainable, which is honestly probably going to turn into taskfile[0] instead of makefiles, and then simple python scripts for the glue that ties everything together or does more complex logic.

My hope is that it can be more straightforward and easier to maintain, with more component-ized logic, but realistically every step in that labyrinthine build process (and that's just the open-source version!) came from a decision made by a very talented team of engineers who know far more about the process and the product than I do. At this point I'm wondering if it would make 'more sense' to replace it with a giant python script of some kind and get access to all the logic we need all at once (it would not).

[0] https://taskfile.dev/

task - a task runner and a replacement for make