Skip to content
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

Naming consistency in Nix module options #207

Open
anntnzrb opened this issue Jul 31, 2024 · 0 comments
Open

Naming consistency in Nix module options #207

anntnzrb opened this issue Jul 31, 2024 · 0 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@anntnzrb
Copy link
Contributor

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.

No. Upon revising the codebase, I first noticed some naming inconsistencies in the shfmt.nix file in comparison to others. This became more apparent when I compared it to other files like ruff.nix and prettier.nix. The inconsistencies involve the use of different naming conventions such as camelCase, snake_case, and kebab-case for module options. While this might seem like a minor issue, it could potentially lead to confusion or errors in the future.

Describe the solution you'd like

There should be a standard naming convention adopted for module options, especially for newer contributions. This standardization will help maintain consistency across the codebase and make it easier for developers to understand and contribute.

Describe alternatives you've considered

N/A

Additional context

There would be a significant amount of module renaming involved, so I'm curious how we would approach this process. How can we implement these changes efficiently and ensure a smooth transition without disrupting the current functionality?

Looking forward to thoughts and suggestions.

Greetings.

@anntnzrb anntnzrb added the enhancement New feature or request label Jul 31, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant