safety
safety copied to clipboard
Set correct code blocks language in README.md
This will give the code blocks in README.md syntax highlighting for better readability.
Codecov Report
Merging #329 (b14afff) into master (b289752) will not change coverage. The diff coverage is
n/a
.
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #329 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 71.59% 71.59%
=======================================
Files 8 8
Lines 514 514
=======================================
Hits 368 368
Misses 146 146
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact)
,ø = not affected
,? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update b289752...b14afff. Read the comment docs.
Thanks for this. There is one block marked with bash
which contains only a banner, no bash call. Also, there are some commands with results dumped in separate blocks like this:
safety check --bare
django
Instead of this:
$ safety check --bare
django
Finally, I am not sure whether these are all bash calls. Some are console sample outputs, not bash scripts. I'll have another thought about this later. My preference would be to merge a final fix to all these minor issues.
I use bash
because most of them(which are not changed at this PR) are already using bash
, for consistency reason, I use bash
, not sh
here, but actually it's the same as sh
on GitHub if I didn't recall wrong.
Looks like the case you mentioned (safety check --bare
) doesn't seem to be in the scope of the changes here? The changes here all affect the visual result, because there is shell pipe(|
) in it, and the change can make them to be more readable.
We appreciate your effort looking forward small details like this. I would urge you to bring more complete pull-requests for similar areas. In the meanwhile, I think we are good the way it is. If you want to bring #330 changes together with these and also align block usages across entire README, that would be meaningful.
It's odd that this is not meaningful, both #329 #330 were marked invalid and closed by you which I can't reopen, can you open one of them so that I can revise it?
With all due respect, this is a little bit contributor unfriendly, it'll be really great if there could be more discussion before the mark an closure ;)
I hear you, @PeterDaveHello :sunflower:
Looks like we need better guidelines for contributors indeed. At this moment you can consider just grouping related pull-requests into a single one. That's my main point here.
The benefit you brought with the Docker image size reduction was worth going through multiple spread pull-requests, even though I would expect them to be grouped. Anyway, for this case, I don't see a value in doing that.
Finally, I honestly don't know which one I should re-open, so, please, if you want this to be considered again, open a new pull-request with entire README reviewed.
Thanks, maybe just reopen this one as it's sent first? I'll update the commit in it once it's opened ;)
Hi @rafaelpivato, do you have a minute help reopen this PR so I can push revised commits here? Thanks.
PR updated! Thanks!
@rafaelpivato, is there anything else I can do to get this merged :)
Sorry. at this moment we are just being strict about priorities in general. The PR looks good. We should merge it after I have time for a small review. Thanks for that.