Stuck on an issue?

Lightrun Answers was designed to reduce the constant googling that comes with debugging 3rd party libraries. It collects links to all the places you might be looking at while hunting down a tough bug.

And, if you’re still stuck at the end, we’re happy to hop on a call to see how we can help out.

Get rid of elm-analyse.json

See original GitHub issue

We should get rid of the file and switch to our own file format.

One idea would be to use the elm-tooling.json to handle these settings.

@lydell

Issue Analytics

State:
Created 2 years ago
Comments:5 (5 by maintainers)

Top GitHub Comments

1reaction

razzeeecommented, Aug 21, 2021

I think the problem is, that we’re missing docs. As it’s unclear which rules we support and what they do.

Simon Lydell @.***> schrieb am Sa., 21. Aug. 2021, 14:45:

One could also ask the question: Does this create any benefit at all for end users, or are we just going to cause hassle for them having to move stuff from elm-analyse.json to elm-tooling.json?

It might feel cleaner for us, but maybe this is a historical quirk that doesn’t matter much. People have their elm-analyse.json set up and that works (if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it).

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/elm-tooling/elm-language-server/issues/616#issuecomment-903111544, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABNLEZEDASULBBQHIWXF74LT56NYDANCNFSM5AM3R6EA .

0reactions

lydellcommented, Aug 21, 2021

One could also ask the question: Does this create any benefit at all for end users, or are we just going to cause hassle for them having to move stuff from elm-analyse.json to elm-tooling.json?

It might feel cleaner for us, but maybe this is a historical quirk that doesn’t matter much. People have their elm-analyse.json set up and that works (if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it).