If you run jsbeautify with space_in_paren: false, does that mean that it removes spaces or that it ignores whether or not there are spaces? If the later, I would vote that we do that.

Kaldari

On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Jon Robson <jrobson@wikimedia.org> wrote:

I think we can conclude if jscs doesn't complain then it is not an
established coding convention and we should leave that up to the
implementer.

Going forward I would suggest in code review we do not nit pick on the
things that jscs does not complain about, so if Joaquin wants to run
jsbeautify on his pre-commit hook on new patches and it creates code
that makes jscs happy he should be allowed to. If there is something
that you believe should be a coding convention enabling it in jscs
config if the rule exists or write a new rule for jscs.

If we codify more conventions in jscs then tools like jsbeautify will
have to be adapted to respect that.

All in favour?

On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 2:34 AM, Ryan Kaldari <rkaldari@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Personally, I like hideOverlay( this.stack[0].overlay );
>
> Having spaces inside parentheses makes sense since parameters are usually
> words or word-like and it's easier to read words when they have spaces
> around them. Keys inside brackets are often just numbers, which I don't
> think really benefit from having spaces. That said, I realize this is
> inconsistent and I would be OK with using spaces for both. Not using spaces
> at all makes it harder to scan code for particular variables, etc, IMO.
>
> Kaldari
>
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Jon Robson <jrobson@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>
>> + mobile-l
>>
>> This is all useful feedback.
>> That would be ideal if jscs had this capability but an interim
>> solution would be good in the meantime.
>>
>> I think it's important to codify our coding conventions across the
>> project. It will make it much easier for newbies to write code without
>> having to worry about coding style.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 11:19 PM, Krinkle <krinklemail@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hi Jon,
>> >
>> > Just wanted to quickly share my ideas on code formatting.
>> >
>> > First off, as long as there are no side effects (e.g. normalising too
>> > much),
>> > any tool will do in the mean-while and it's trivial to switch later on
>> > (e.g.
>> > just change which tasks the "grunt fixup" alias will run). They wouldn't
>> > be
>> > run as part of "grunt test". Instead it's a convenience tool for
>> > developers
>> > to easily reformat code locally before submission (e.g. after jscs
>> > pointed
>> > out one or more errors in their local grunt run). This is among the
>> > reasons
>> > why using a local Grunt is so convenient. It enables individual projects
>> > to
>> > try out new tools without requiring server-side configuration. I try out
>> > new
>> > tasks all the time in oojs-core and VisualEditor. Some stick, some
>> > don't.
>> >
>> > Having said that, I've used js-beautifier in the past and worry it won't
>> > work well for us.
>> >
>> > esformatter[1] on the other hand seems to have a more stable
>> > implementation
>> > and general approach.
>> >
>> > However, any tool other than jscs will come with the down side of having
>> > to
>> > declare your style guide, again. Which will amount to tedious
>> > duplication
>> > and loads of edge cases where the tools declare the style using
>> > different
>> > logical rules and will never match.
>> >
>> > jscs ships with a wikimedia preset that saves lots of configuration in
>> > the
>> > first place.
>> >
>> > And fortunately, jscs actually plans to ship an "autofixer" utility that
>> > will correct violations from within jscs itself. Using the solid parser
>> > and
>> > tokeniser that jscs is known for. Thus, even the small jscs rule config
>> > we
>> > do have, won't have to be duplicated.
>> >
>> > The jQuery Team also supports this effort for their various javascript
>> > projects (both as style checker, as we do already, and as code
>> > formatter).
>> > So that's a major player we'll have on our side when it comes to
>> > continued
>> > support for the tool.
>> >
>> > https://github.com/jscs-dev/node-jscs/issues/516
>> >
>> > Supported by Mike Sherov (mikesherov) and Oleg Gaidarenko (markelog),
>> > from
>> > the jQuery Team (who are also jscs collaborators). And Marat Dulin
>> > (mdevils), founder of jscs.
>> >
>> > Best,
>> >
>> > — Krinkle
>> >
>> > [1] https://github.com/millermedeiros/esformatter
>> >
>> > On 20 Nov 2014, at 23:57, Derk-Jan Hartman <d.j.hartman@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > Begin forwarded message:
>> >
>> > Date: 20 november 2014 21:19:24 CET
>> > From: Jon Robson <jrobson@wikimedia.org>
>> > To: Bahodir Mansurov <bmansurov@wikimedia.org>
>> > Cc: mobile-l <mobile-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
>> > Subject: Re: [WikimediaMobile] Using jsbeautify in MobileFrontend
>> >
>> > Follow up
>> > If I run `make jsbeautify` now
>> > then https://gist.github.com/jdlrobson/a05ddad00175ebceac68 is the
>> > result.
>> >
>> > Outstanding actions:
>> > * Need input on rest of the team about which of delete
>> > this.cache[title]; or delete this.cache[ title ]; is the preferred
>> > standard.
>> > * You'll notice jsbeautify and inlne comments need to be ironed out.
>> > For example:
>> >
>> > https://gist.github.com/jdlrobson/a05ddad00175ebceac68#file-gistfile1-diff-L257
>> >
>> > Apart from the above 2 jsbeautify makes some adjustments to our
>> > whitspace which I guess we'll just have to live with.
>> >
>> > Please can everyone else let me know how they think we should proceed?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 4:12 AM, Bahodir Mansurov
>> > <bmansurov@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > As for # Rule 4, it makes sense to add spaces inside square brackets.
>> > The
>> > reasoning is the same as why we add spaces inside parenthesis.
>> >
>> > On Nov 18, 2014, at 12:28 PM, Jon Robson <jrobson@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > I explored running jsbeautify [1] on the MobileFrontend codebase and
>> > looked at how the output differs from the current styling. It
>> > introduces various rules that MobileFrontend is currently not adhering
>> > too. MobileFrontend already uses jscs [2] so we want to make sure the
>> > outputs of both are compatible. Here is my report on that with the
>> > recommendation that we should use it.
>> >
>> > #Rule 1: object properties defined on a single line.
>> > e.g.
>> > {
>> > foo: 2,
>> > bar: 3
>> > }
>> > NOT { foo: 2, bar: 3 }
>> >
>> > I think this would be a good idea to adopt. I will explore if jscs can
>> > enforce this.
>> >
>> > # Rule 2: variables that are initialised must be followed by a new
>> > line (although I noted a few odd cases e.g. in Page.js after a "?:"
>> > expression and /MobileWebClickTracking.js
>> > e.g.
>> > var Foo, bar = $( 'div' ),
>> > Baz,
>> > Bar;
>> >
>> > not:
>> > var Foo, bar = $( 'div' ), Baz, Bar;
>> >
>> > This will be fixed if I implement https://trello.com/c/0dkx0ldL
>> >
>> > # Rule 3: All chained events should be indented
>> > e.g.
>> > foo()
>> > .bar();
>> >
>> > not
>> > foo().
>> > bar();
>> >
>> > Seems like a no brainer. One that happens naturally most of the time.
>> >
>> > # Rule 4: Spacing in object parameters
>> > e.g.
>> > foo[ 1 ]
>> > [ 1, 2, 3, 4 ]
>> >
>> > not:
>> > foo[1]
>> > [1, 2, 3, 4]
>> >
>> > This is different to MediaWiki coding conventions but I can implement
>> > https://github.com/beautify-web/js-beautify/issues/424 to give us
>> > this.
>> > We seem a bit inconsistent ourselves with this convention - let me
>> > know how you think this rule should work in our codebase...
>> >
>> > # Rule 5: New line after variable declarations
>> >
>> > var x, y, z;
>> >
>> > z();
>> >
>> > not:
>> > var x, y, z;
>> > z();
>> >
>> > Also:
>> > function foo() {}
>> >
>> > function bar() {}
>> >
>> > not:
>> > function foo() {}
>> > function bar() {}
>> >
>> > Seems like a no brainer and shouldn't introduce any major issues with
>> > code review.
>> >
>> > # Rule 6: Comments must respect the current indentation level
>> >
>> > if () {
>> > ...
>> > // If i is 5 we do something special
>> > } else if ( i === 5 ){
>> >
>> > }
>> > becomes
>> > if () {
>> > ...
>> > // If i is 5 we do something special
>> > } else if ( i === 5 ){
>> >
>> > }
>> > We'll have to think about what to do with these comments but I don't
>> > think this should be a blocker to using jsbeautify. It will only pop
>> > up occasionally.
>> >
>> > # Rule 7: On long if statements the curly brace must be indented.
>> > And the first condition should be on the same line
>> >
>> > if ( enableToc || ...
>> > ....
>> > && baz ) {
>> >
>> >
>> > not:
>> > if (
>> > enableToc || ...
>> > ....
>> > && baz ) {
>> >
>> > Again I'm not sure if this will happen too often. This to me is a sign
>> > that we should be using functions rather than long if statements
>> > personally. Again not a blocker.
>> >
>> > Actions:
>> > * Implement https://github.com/beautify-web/js-beautify/issues/424
>> > * You guys need to advise me on how we should handle square brackets
>> > in our codebase in such a way we respect MediaWiki coding conventions
>> > and come up with a consistent style we are happy with and can adhere
>> > to.
>> > * I'll implement https://trello.com/c/0dkx0ldL in some form
>> > * I'll explore if jscs can support objects defined on new line
>> > * When the above are done I recommend we turn on jsbeautify for the
>> > project.
>> >
>> > I've setup a tracking card for the above work:
>> > https://trello.com/c/5btWf2JN/90-snakes-on-a-plane
>> > and will be looking at these problems today.
>> >
>> > [1] https://github.com/beautify-web/js-beautify
>> > [2] https://github.com/jscs-dev/node-jscs
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Mobile-l mailing list
>> > Mobile-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Mobile-l mailing list
>> > Mobile-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Mobile-l mailing list
>> Mobile-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
>
>

_______________________________________________
Mobile-l mailing list
Mobile-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l