Include new prettify

[alazzaro]

Include new prettify

[dev-zero]

we can use whatever you want to be used ;-)

[alazzaro]

Close with 972f09e

[dev-zero]

we could integrate the fprettify via pre-commit instead?

[alazzaro]

Sure, of course. My first step was to include it...

[pseewald]

I would suggest imposing a less aggressive version of fprettify that only fixes indentation but otherwise leaves whitespace formatting intact (fprettify --disable-whitespace). Same for CP2K, but due to legacy-prettify and legacy-doxify we are not ready yet for such a change... It's much easier to justify and explain to external contributors and reduces prettify noise in commit history.

If we include fprettify via git submodule, can we use latest release instead of master branch? Or do I need to create a branch with releases only?

[alazzaro]

@pseewald @dev-zero What's the status of this issue?
My trick was to do this in the Makefile:

# Pretty function, check if the file requires update
define pretty_func
        @mkdir -p $(PRETTYOBJDIR)
        @rm -f $2
        $(TOOLSRC)/fprettify/fprettify.py --disable-whitespace -s $1 > $2
        @cmp -s $1 $2; \
        RETVAL=$$?; \
        if [ $$RETVAL -ne 0 ]; then \
            cp $2 $1; \
        fi
endef

but I think we can now remove it with the new prettifier, right?

[pseewald]

I still need to fix pseewald/fprettify#34

[alazzaro]

OK, then I will move this issue to v3. No rush.

[pseewald]

I still need to fix pseewald/fprettify#34

This is fixed

[alazzaro]

closed via #270