-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 17
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
feat: move to pkl instead of yaml #101
Comments
Hello, I would like to work on this task as a continuation of my previous proposal from #70. Feel free to assign this ticket to me. Thank you! |
i assume the linting support thing? |
Yes sure no problem. I will work on the linting command and create a new Pkl schema similarly to what I did with Cue. The lint command should be able to validate both YAML and Pkl inputs since Pkl based recipes will eventually become a thing. Now that I think about it, in order to add support for Pkl based recipes a Pkl definition (schema) will be needed. Feels like we will end up doing the same work twice. Maybe is better to add a lint command after Pkl recipes are supported? |
Yes and no, my pkl recipe format will be different than the current yaml one, so we'd need two different definitions either way. Since I plan on deprecating the yml recipe at some point, adjusting it to the new format is in my opinion not worth it |
OK got it. I will proceed as planned then, and we can adjust if necessary. |
Using Apple's PKL format for our recipes would be a nice upgrade from using yaml, since it supports things like types and pulling modules from the web directly (which we currently have implemented ourselves)
Moving to pkl would go in two steps
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: