ENT-14151: Formatted with cfengine format and added GH Action to check formatting

[olehermanse]

No description provided.

[larsewi]

Comments are out of place many places

[craigcomstock]

I see you fixed the placement of the comments. Is there a way to fix cfengine format to keep the comments with the code they are "after on the same line" as in this case?

[craigcomstock]

Seems wrong that the formatter threw away this comment?

[craigcomstock]

Oh. It pushed it down to the next block. Curious.

[nickanderson]

did it? Here it looks to me like it moved it before the feed attribtue

[olehermanse]

@nickanderson look at the commits, I moved it manually in a separate commit.

[olehermanse]

I see you fixed the placement of the comments. Is there a way to fix cfengine format to keep the comments with the code they are "after on the same line" as in this case?

@craigcomstock I think you already asked about this a few weeks ago? It's intended behavior. The formatter doesn't know about the placement of anything. It parses a whole file into a syntax tree and then renders the syntax tree. Everything lands in a deterministic place, regardless of how it was placed between whitespace characters in the input.

If we were going to "fix" this, we'd have to change the parser so it generates different types of comments. There are a few drawbacks to that and I'm not convinced the benefit of allowing people to place comments in different places is worth it.

[craigcomstock]

I see you fixed the placement of the comments. Is there a way to fix cfengine format to keep the comments with the code they are "after on the same line" as in this case?

@craigcomstock I think you already asked about this a few weeks ago? It's intended behavior. The formatter doesn't know about the placement of anything. It parses a whole policy into a syntax tree and then renders the syntax tree. Everything lands in a deterministic place, regardless of how it was placed between whitespace characters in the input.

If we were going to "fix" this, we'd have to change the parser so it generates different types of comments. There are a few drawbacks to that and I'm not convinced the benefit of allowing people to place comments in different places is worth it.

It makes sense to me that a comment after an attribute on the same line belongs with that promise and not the next promise. But this is a comment on the formatter not this reformat here. All good! :)

[nickanderson]

It seems like comments after attributes move inconsistently?

Here it moved below the attribute on the next line: #146 (comment)

Here it moved before the promise? #146 (review)

[olehermanse]

It seems like comments after attributes move inconsistently?

Here it moved below the attribute on the next line: #146 (comment)

Here it moved before the promise? #146 (review)

@nickanderson no, please look at the commits.