Add format suggestions to CI

[huiyuxie]

Same as title.

[github-actions]

Review checklist

This checklist is meant to assist creators of PRs (to let them know what reviewers will typically look for) and reviewers (to guide them in a structured review process). Items do not need to be checked explicitly for a PR to be eligible for merging.

Purpose and scope

• The PR has a single goal that is clear from the PR title and/or description.
• All code changes represent a single set of modifications that logically belong together.
• No more than 500 lines of code are changed or there is no obvious way to split the PR into multiple PRs.

Code quality

• The code can be understood easily.
• Newly introduced names for variables etc. are self-descriptive and consistent with existing naming conventions.
• There are no redundancies that can be removed by simple modularization/refactoring.
• There are no leftover debug statements or commented code sections.
• The code adheres to our conventions and style guide, and to the Julia guidelines.

Documentation

• New functions and types are documented with a docstring or top-level comment.
• Relevant publications are referenced in docstrings (see example for formatting).
• Inline comments are used to document longer or unusual code sections.
• Comments describe intent ("why?") and not just functionality ("what?").
• If the PR introduces a significant change or new feature, it is documented in NEWS.md with its PR number.

Testing

• The PR passes all tests.
• New or modified lines of code are covered by tests.
• New or modified tests run in less then 10 seconds.

Performance

• There are no type instabilities or memory allocations in performance-critical parts.
• If the PR intent is to improve performance, before/after time measurements are posted in the PR.

Verification

• The correctness of the code was verified using appropriate tests.
• If new equations/methods are added, a convergence test has been run and the results
  are posted in the PR.

Created with ❤️ by the Trixi.jl community.

[huiyuxie]

We already have a formatting action. Could you please remove this part from this PR for now and make a new PR changing our current CI job? Then, we can discuss how to proceed with it with the other people involved.

@ranocha What are you going to discuss here?

[huiyuxie]

Format CI failed since I added docs format check to CI but #2111 has not yet been merged.

[JoshuaLampert]

We don't need the previous part (i.e. the check-format job) anymore. This is also done by the new action.
With this setup the job only runs if we explicitly add the label format-suggest. I would prefer not having to add a label to the PR for the job to run. I.e. I would delete the corresponding lines.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 96.36%. Comparing base (54237d3) to head (52532bd).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2118      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   95.50%   96.36%   +0.86%     
==========================================
  Files         477      477              
  Lines       37752    37753       +1     
==========================================
+ Hits        36052    36378     +326     
+ Misses       1700     1375     -325     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	96.36% <ø> (+0.86%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[ranocha]

Thanks.

[huiyuxie]

Why do we stick to formatter 1.0.60 it already has been updated to 2.0.0 @ranocha

[ranocha]

Why do we stick to formatter 1.0.60 it already has been updated to 2.0.0 @ranocha

We had bad experience with changes that broke some of our code. Thus, we decided to stick to a fixed version of the formatter. If everything is fine with v2, we can also update the version accordingly. If you like, please search the code/docs for it and update it acordingly.

[ranocha]

I would like to get feedback from @sloede. Do you have an example PR to see how the suggestions etc. look like?

[huiyuxie]

If you like, please search the code/docs for it and update it acordingly.

I prefer to do it in another PR.

Do you have an example PR to see how the suggestions etc. look like?

Wait - update: if you are interested please try by yourself as I cannot show you @ranocha

[JoshuaLampert]

Why do we stick to formatter 1.0.60 it already has been updated to 2.0.0 @ranocha

Please do not update to v2 now. This is quite new and has many problems, see https://github.com/domluna/JuliaFormatter.jl/issues?q=sort%3Aupdated-desc+is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen. Because of that JuliaFormatter v2.0.0 has been yanked, see JuliaRegistries/General#117438. We should not use it now. If things settled and everything works, we can switch to it (v2 also solves some bugs from v1, which is nice), but now it's too early.

[huiyuxie]

I changed the format of advection 1D in example - format suggestions works but it is hard for me to read

[JoshuaLampert]

The suggestions will not work in this PR because it is only for PRs, which originate not from forks. This is for security reasons, see e.g. julia-actions/julia-format#34.

[JoshuaLampert]

If you want to see how it looks like, you can, e.g., have a look here.

[huiyuxie]

it is only for PRs, which originate not from forks.

Hmm but most contributions are from forks

[JoshuaLampert]

In that case the situation is as before. Your job fails if the code is not formatted and you need to format it locally.

[huiyuxie]

I see - it also makes sense

[JoshuaLampert]

Thanks!

[sloede]

Looks interesting... I think we should give it a try and see how we fare with it. Thanks!