c99bb3c782
editor/code: Break down CI steps to know what is failing easily This do the thing I mentioned in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-analyzer/pull/15265#issuecomment-1634424385 This aims to improve CI status check more readable. I tried to use [`jobs.<job_id>.if`](https://docs.github.com/en/actions/using-workflows/workflow-syntax-for-github-actions#jobsjob_idif) to make the configuration more shortly once. But it could not fire the `end-success` or `end-failure` status if some jobs in the workflow were skipped. This causes an integration problem with bors. By their reasons, this patch still uses `jobs.<job_id>.steps[*].if`. --- To do this change, we reorganize npm-script. | previous | after | |--------------------|----------------------------------------| | `npm run lint` | `npm run lint && npm run format:check` | | `npm run fix` | `npm run lint:fix && npm run format` | The previous `npm run fix` sometimes does not complete fix automatically because ESLint's autofix doees not follow prettier's formatting. So we need to run `npm run lint:fix && npm run format` by this order. |
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| code | ||