Run Prettier separately in `app` blueprint about rfcs HOT 9 OPEN

RE: script names, I personally like lint:prettier and lint:prettier:fix for the two scripts. It plays well with the other top level scripts that we use lint and lint:fix.

from rfcs.

It should also use --ignore-unknown IMO. This is what I tend to use:

    "lint:prettier": "prettier --cache --ignore-unknown --check .",
    "lint:prettier:fix": "prettier --cache --write --ignore-unknown ."

from rfcs.

I'm a fan. It turns out that the prettier integratios for eslint is really slow.
Also, some folks manually deal with red squigglies in their editor (even despite knowing about the format document command, or running eslint on save), so removing those would be a productivity boost for them.

from rfcs.

Wouldn't it be something like "format" and "format:fix" to match the other conventions?

from rfcs.

why learn extra CLI commands?

we have lint:glint, too -- which is quite nice (bundled in to lint)

from rfcs.

why learn extra CLI commands?

What are you referring to? I'm referring to out existing conventions of using ":fix" to do code changes https://github.com/ember-cli/ember-cli/blob/master/blueprints/app/files/package.json#L18.

from rfcs.

The script names are probably not ideal at the moment, other suggestions are certainly welcome!
I mainly wanted the Prettier check to automatically be picked up when running npm run lint, hence lint:format.
And now that I think about it, it should probably be lint:format:fix, for it to be picked up by lint:fix.

from rfcs.

I do something very similar in the apps I work on, so I'm completely on board with this.

from rfcs.

Updated the format script to lint:format:fix in my initial comment.
Though, I have no strong preference between lint:format:* and lint:prettier:*.
I like that lint:format:* is more agnostic of the used tool, but lint:prettier:* is probably more clear.

from rfcs.