feature request: dry run formatters about conform.nvim HOT 2 CLOSED

This is a neat idea, and if it can be done with relatively minimal API changes that are pretty clean, I'm on board. The API that makes the most sense to me would be:

• Add a second parameter to the callback function that is a boolean. This indicates if any changes were applied.
• Add a dry_run option to format() that will skip applying changes, but keep the same logic for that formatted parameter.

This way we don't expose more information than is actually needed, we neatly sidestep the issue of "how do we combine normal formatter diffs with LSP format diffs", and it's something that could be useful for non-dry_runs as well. What do you think?

from conform.nvim.

This is a neat idea, and if it can be done with relatively minimal API changes that are pretty clean, I'm on board. The API that makes the most sense to me would be:

* Add a second parameter to the `callback` function that is a boolean. This indicates if any changes were applied.

* Add a `dry_run` option to format() that will skip applying changes, but keep the same logic for that `formatted` parameter.

This way we don't expose more information than is actually needed, we neatly sidestep the issue of "how do we combine normal formatter diffs with LSP format diffs", and it's something that could be useful for non-dry_runs as well. What do you think?

I like this as well. I wasn't sure if you'd want just the boolean return value, since it does limit the usefulness of this change, but I'm on board with leaving it that way since it does massively simplify the implementation.

from conform.nvim.