Re: pgindent vs. pgperltidy command-line arguments - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andrew Dunstan
Subject Re: pgindent vs. pgperltidy command-line arguments
Date
Msg-id da2f7920-c12b-7e37-f87e-6c7bd5fd0f80@dunslane.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pgindent vs. pgperltidy command-line arguments  (Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>)
Responses Re: pgindent vs. pgperltidy command-line arguments
Re: pgindent vs. pgperltidy command-line arguments
List pgsql-hackers


On 2023-06-14 We 03:37, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 25.05.23 15:20, Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> writes:
Until PG15, calling pgindent without arguments would process the whole
tree.  Now you get
No files to process at ./src/tools/pgindent/pgindent line 372.
Is that intentional?

It was intentional, cf b16259b3c and the linked discussion.

Also, pgperltidy accepts no arguments and always processes the whole
tree.  It would be nice if there were a way to process individual files
or directories, like pgindent can.

+1, although I wonder if we shouldn't follow pgindent's new lead
and require some argument(s).

That makes sense to me.  Here is a small update with this behavior change and associated documentation update.


I'm intending to add some of the new pgindent features to pgperltidy. Preparatory to that here's a rewrite of pgperltidy in perl - no new features yet but it does remove the hardcoded path, and requires you to pass in one or more files / directories as arguments.


cheers


andrew

--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Joel Jacobson"
Date:
Subject: Re: Do we want a hashset type?
Next
From: Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker
Date:
Subject: Re: pgindent vs. pgperltidy command-line arguments