Satisfy vint style checking #18
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
vint's GitHub page advertises a `next-line` syntax that is currently broken. This commit uses a (slightly awkward) workaround, until vint's developers decide to update the PyPI version of vint. Relevant vint issue: vint/329
|
Now that CI is functioning properly, do we also want to add a status badge to the README? |
Sounds reasonable, would make for some nice overview. |
Looks nice and give some neat overview : )
l-zeuch
approved these changes
Feb 5, 2022
|
Perfect, thanks! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Please describe the changes this pull request does and why it should be merged:
This PR makes some minor changes to style in relevant Vimscript files, so that the recently-merged (#17) CI linting step passes cleanly.
Note that vint has a bug where their
next-linesyntax isn't recognized, so for now, we work around this by disabling the relevant check for one line, then reenabling it.Terms