Refactor toolkit.nu

[texastoland]

Closes #789 🍻

• Runs without first generating a script
• Returns error (file) count
• Requires --and-exit to exit with error code
• Enables alternative report with env STUB_IDE_CHECK=true
• Expands documentation
• All subcommands share same file querying
• Prepares for nupm test integration

[texastoland]

@AucaCoyan If you wanna review 📝 Tested combinations of every flag, every subcommand, as well as the stub locally.

[AucaCoyan]

Excellent additions! I'm happier with this code that whatever I wrote in the first place ❤️
Can I ask for you for another change?
on .github/worklows/daily you need to change LN 29 to
nu --commands "use toolkit.nu *; check pr --full --and-exit"
And also remove the last step

I tested this on my repo and it worked as expected (fixes #789 )
You can see the ❌ in the main branch and also the results in the CI

[AucaCoyan]

closes #789
Well... I tried to link this PR to the issue, so, when it's merged it's closed automatically, but github doesn't want to 🤣

[texastoland]

on .github/worklows/daily you need to change LN 29 to nu --commands "use toolkit.nu *; check pr --full --and-exit" And also remove the last step

Great catch and fixed! The unrelated YAML changes were just Prettier.

closes #789

Added to the description!

@fdncred I'm planning to reorganize this into a directory module when I integrate nupm test. I have to add nupm to hustcer/setup-nu/issues/40 first.

[AucaCoyan]

All good!

[fdncred]

I'm not a huge fan of using nupm before it's ready because it may result in endless changes here.

[texastoland]

I'm not a huge fan of using nupm before it's ready because it may result in endless changes here.

Only for nupm test since the std package is deprecated?

[fdncred]

Another reason why I think std testing was removed too soon. If we paint ourselves into a corner here with nupm, we can always remove this functionality from the ci.

[texastoland]

I don't mind deferring it. Provided details on Discord. I'm simplifying the GitHub action (just broke it) then this will be ready to go 👌🏼

[fdncred]

I'm fine with trying things out and seeing how they go. No worries. I won't block this.

[texastoland]

I'm simplifying the GitHub action (just broke it) then this will be ready to go 👌🏼

@fdncred Ready when you are

[kubouch]

The nupm test is continually tested in nupm's CI, so it should work OK, but its implementation might change, and then the tests would need updating. But it might be worth having nupm being used somewhere for testing and nu_scripts is not so critical, so we could try it and see how it goes.

[texastoland]

@fdncred: I'm fine with trying things out and seeing how they go. No worries. I won't block this.

To clarify there's no testing yet.

[me]: I have to add nupm to hustcer/setup-nu/issues/40 first.

Adding nupm to the GitHub action is prerequisite. I'm already attempting it!

@kubouch: nu_scripts is not so critical, so we could try it and see how it goes.

I'll tag you in the next PR then ✌🏼