Guard VS tree-sitter

Guard is a Ruby gem that can be used to run test cases automatically when source files change. For example, with guard-minitestand a simple Guardfile, you can run tests as the files are modified.

Text and file processing. Everything from parsing log files and generating reports, to watching folders with the Guard library and doing things with the files.

Perhaps using guard you can automate that https://github.com/guard/guard

It seems like where you are, devs are pushing code that fails in the CI/CD pipeline, which means, if your test suite isn't flakey, they aren't running tests locally. I had this problem too. I work on a rails monorepo, so I use the guard gem to automatically run certain tests when certain files are changed. There should be an analagous tool in whatever language/framework env(s) you're working in.

You should definitely use something more polished like Guard but you could also experiment with a "simpler" approach.

Check out https://github.com/guard/guard and https://github.com/guard/guard-rspec (if you're using rspec)

Probably https://github.com/guard/guard

Installation guide for guard

Now, consider this a mea culpa, as I know there are many ways this could go wrong. The guard documentation was also kind enough to warn me as such. This is, for better or for worse, my first attempt at building out a way to TCR in Rails. I’m excited to be able to follow up as I spend more time with my monstrous guardfile and this workflow so I can let you know how it goes.

I learned from a google search that these days upstream tree-sitter provides WebAssembly bindings.

Source: https://github.com/tree-sitter/tree-sitter/tree/master/lib/b...

NPM: https://www.npmjs.com/package/web-tree-sitter

Download from the latest Github release: js file (https://github.com/tree-sitter/tree-sitter/releases/download...) and wasm file (https://github.com/tree-sitter/tree-sitter/releases/download...)

Tree-sitter optimizes for performance (to use in editors), not for correctness. In fact even TS' core developers advocate for not bothering too much with correctness of grammars[1]. I imagine this constraint would be a deal-breaker for GitHub or anyone else in their position.

[1] https://github.com/tree-sitter/tree-sitter/issues/130#issuec...

This is a plugin that provides a simple way to use the tree-sitter in Neovim and also provides functionalities like highlighting, etc.

From the tree-sitter side, I am tracking https://github.com/tree-sitter/tree-sitter/issues/1942

Is tree-sitter really slower than TextMate grammars? Some benchmarks indicate that this isn't really the case [1]. On the other hand, breaking parse trees is a real issue, because the error-recovery in tree-sitter is pretty rudimentary [2][3], but as you said, it's not an issue for Shiki.

Several TextMate grammars suffer from inaccuracy bugs, and issues of maintainability. Perhaps the biggest hindrance in the adoption of tree-sitter, is that the most popular editor, VSCode, still doesn't support it.

[1]: https://github.com/microsoft/vscode/pull/161479

[2]: https://github.com/tree-sitter/tree-sitter/issues/1870

[3]: https://github.com/tree-sitter/tree-sitter/issues/224

u/lewis6991 I think the biggest performance gain was made by tree-sitter itself: https://github.com/tree-sitter/tree-sitter/pull/2085

I asked on the repo's discussions but responses are limited and not explanatory (I'm not shaming anyone here, discussions aren't a place for detailed how-tos and documentations anyway).

The following discussion here. TS query cannot be incremental, that is why I regard it as design fault.

Hi, so I've recently decided to give Neovim yet another try, this time using some predefined plugins with kickstart.nvim, for syntax it uses tree-sitter.