Feature Request: Make code formatter configurable

[digitalbuddha]

Currently there does not exist a way to disable the code formatting during generated class creation. #368 goes into a discussion on performance of current formatting. I'd like to create a separate feature request to allow a user of Dagger to disable formatting altogether. I have 2 reasons for the request:

• Like many, we do not adhere to Google's code formatting within our codebase
• Speed of compilation

Thank you for your consideration

[nisrulz]

@digitalbuddha looks like someone created a PR #513 , in the same context. Leaving it here for info.

[gk5885]

Glad we have a tracking bug for this. Thanks.

First, insofar as performance is a concern, I think our first priority should absolutely be to address #368. Regardless of whether or not we add a flag we must address performance. I think we have sufficient evidence to suggest that we have done a pretty bad job of making the formatting perform well, but not that we cannot make it sufficiently fast as to be acceptable in every build.

As to whether or not it needs to be formatted at all, that is a tricky thing to reason about. You can obviously argue that you don't necessarily need legible source code to have a functional, successful dependency injection framework because Guice exists. But, aside from the particular limitations w.r.t. Android, Google decided to invest in Dagger particularly because the opacity of the implementation made applications difficult to debug and maintain. So, the ability to read and understand the implementation of the injector has always been a primary design goal or Dagger 2.

As far as the particular styling goes, the fact that it is Google style vs. any other doesn't really matter much to me. We use GJF to format the source mostly because we've had terrible luck using other formatters -- they seem to have too many poorly handled edge cases to apply them broadly. That said, if someone were motivated to try to adapt a different formatter implementation, I think that'd be a great addition.

[JakeWharton]

I'm particularly interested in what pragmatic changes we can make in JavaPoet to support some formatting. I believe @ronshapiro or maybe it was you Greg that suggested running GJF only on a CodeBlock for method body contents and leaving the rest to the default JavaPoet formatting.

This should be on the other issue... #368 (comment)

[ZacSweers]

Chiming in here: 95% of my reason for that PR is because it causes flaky builds for us (#457).

[cypressious]

I'm the author of #368. I understand the motivation to fix the underlying issue but why not take the quick win by adding the option first and then you can still fix the formatting performance later?

As @hzsweers stated, his issue isn't even the performance, so disabling formatting can be considered a valid feature with a real use case.

[ZacSweers]

Apparently we do have build perf issues. I don't have the numbers, but @kageiit does and is going to give the data we have over to @ronshapiro and @gk5885

[lwasyl]

What's the status on this issue? #513 seemed to be pretty straightforward but haven't been merged in almost a year, and eventually got closed. Is it something that you are still considering?