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
Named tasks in config #410
Comments
@jthegedus We too have been contemplating changing the config schema to allow specifying
Those messages come from |
@sudo-suhas I'll keep my eyes open for that update 😃 If this request is tracked elsewhere for that release, feel free to close this issue 👍 |
Bump. We could really use this feature (naming of tasks). |
I still think we can use ansi color in there. Something worth trying IMO. On a general note: I'm not opposed to this if this aligns with #277 so please make a proposal that would fit this goal. Additionally, I would expect someone to work on this since I'm out of capacity of free time anymore. |
For now the decision is not to implement this and use custom |
Description
The console output of any underlying tasks is replaced with
Running tasks for <pattern>
. It would be nice if I could name each task so other users didn't have to dive into the config to understand what commands actually runs on each pattern. This is exacerbated in monorepo setup.EG: instead of a
.lint-stagedrc.yml
as such:Writing this:
would mean the output could be format as such:
This format would allow us to distinguish the same pattern being used in completely different commands (see eslint and typecheck above) instead of outputting a single summary for each pattern.
I understand this conflicts with using objects to determine simple vs advanced configs. I haven't thought of a nice solution to propose, sorry.
As a side note, that config format is valid as the object keys do not conflict with any of the advanced object keys. As such it runs but does not match any patterns (fair enough). But the output is confusing for anyone who would expect to be able to name tasks, as there's no grammar separating the result vs the pattern being matched:
A suggestion here would be to clarify what is/is not a pattern:
Using Chalk to colour the output would also help here.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: