This repository has been archived by the owner on Jul 15, 2023. It is now read-only.
Use gomodifytags to add/remove tags from struct fields #880
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
roblourens
reviewed
Mar 23, 2017
| let input = editor.document.fileName + '\n' + fileContents.length + '\n' + fileContents; | ||
| let p = cp.execFile(gomodifytags, args, (err, stdout, stderr) => { | ||
| if (err && (<any>err).code === 'ENOENT') { | ||
| promptForMissingTool('gomodifytags'); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you detect whether the tool is installed earlier, before the user has entered tag names and everything?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We could, but this is the model we follow for all other tools, so will not be changing this unless we change the rest of the places
roblourens
approved these changes
Mar 23, 2017
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fixes #433
See #433 to follow the discussion on the design for this feature