Validate a directory recursively

[amimas]

Is it possible to process a directory recursively so that all toml files in a given directory will be validated?

[staticdev]

@amimas I am creating another repo for this application with a more broad scope (it will also lint other extensions of files). It will have recursive option. I update this issue afterwards.

[amimas]

Thanks for the quick reply @staticdev .

For scanning files recursively in a directory, I'm now using find -name '*.toml' -type f -exec toml-validator {} \;. This will go through every .toml files in current directory and sub-directories and then execute toml-validator on that file.

For me, one of the top benefit of having a linter is to be able to use it in a CI pipeline so that we can catch issues before merging any changes. I like toml-validator. It's simple to setup and use. But I think this is lacking a lot of features. The above is simply a work-around. The linter needs to be able to handle directories on it's own. Otherwise, reporting is going to be on individual files. Speaking which, the linter currently does not have any reporting capabilities (i.e. junit, html, etc.); it simply prints a line in stdout. Also the linter does not quit with a non-zero exit code if it found any issues. That means, if I have a GitHub actions or travis pipeline where I run this for each PR, it won't mark the pipeline as failed. Also, it'd be nice if we could configure the expected schema of toml files (i.e. what keys are valid or invalid). That would make it even more advanced and the linter could be used for advanced validation; not just syntax checking.

I'm listing a lot in this comment. Thought I'd summarize it here.

Thanks for creating it though. It's still useful. 🙏

[staticdev]

@amimas I really liked your feedback. I will share the new repo with you and the recursive folder and we can try together these new improvements.

[staticdev]

@amimas just a quick heads-up. I created version 1.4.0 with different exit code for errors:

Return status:
* 0: no errors found
* 1: incorrect usage
* 2: invalid path
* 3: errors found

This one was very easy to implement.

[staticdev]

@amimas I would able to address most of your suggestions on version 1.5.0. Give it a try.

[amimas]

Thanks @staticdev . I'll try out the new version as early as I can.