Skip to content

Update code formatting with JuliaFormatter #1305

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 31, 2025

Conversation

ChrisRackauckas
Copy link
Member

Summary

  • Applied latest JuliaFormatter standards to improve code consistency and readability across the codebase
  • Formatted Julia source files according to project formatting standards
  • No functional changes, only formatting improvements

Test plan

  • Verify existing tests continue to pass
  • Confirm no functional changes introduced
  • Review formatting changes for consistency

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

Applied latest JuliaFormatter standards to improve code consistency and readability across the codebase.

🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.ai/code)

Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
@ChrisRackauckas ChrisRackauckas merged commit e718736 into master Jul 31, 2025
15 of 17 checks passed
@ChrisRackauckas ChrisRackauckas deleted the julia-formatter-update branch July 31, 2025 22:57
Comment on lines -103 to +107
fig, ax, hm = heatmap(x_vals, y_vals, vals[1];
axis = (xgridvisible = false, ygridvisible = false, xlabel = "Compartment", ylabel = "Compartment"),
fig, ax,
hm = heatmap(x_vals, y_vals, vals[1];
axis = (xgridvisible = false, ygridvisible = false,
xlabel = "Compartment", ylabel = "Compartment"),
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Things likes this are not a reasonable reformat, and are why Catalyst no longer uses JuliaFormatter. Please revert this PR. Is this even correct syntactically now?

@isaacsas
Copy link
Member

isaacsas commented Jul 31, 2025

Also, why is this being merged without waiting for tests to finish? JuliaFormatter 2.0 introduced significant changes that at the time led to one or more Github issues about it breaking code. I don't think it is has proven itself to be a package we can trust to not break code functionality, so at a minimum merging mass format PRs should require an actual human review to look over the reformat and confirm tests are passing.

@ChrisRackauckas
Copy link
Member Author

It did pass tests.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants