Skip to content

ci: migrate format tooling from JuliaFormatter to Runic - #1599

Merged
ChrisRackauckas merged 2 commits into
SciML:masterfrom
ChrisRackauckas-Claude:add-standard-workflows
Jun 7, 2026
Merged

ci: migrate format tooling from JuliaFormatter to Runic#1599
ChrisRackauckas merged 2 commits into
SciML:masterfrom
ChrisRackauckas-Claude:add-standard-workflows

Conversation

@ChrisRackauckas-Claude

@ChrisRackauckas-Claude ChrisRackauckas-Claude commented Jun 7, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Ignore until reviewed by @ChrisRackauckas.

Migrates SciMLBenchmarks.jl format tooling from JuliaFormatter to Runic, matching the BDFL decree that SciMLBenchmarks is a Runic repo (unlike Catalyst/JumpProcesses, which stay JuliaFormatter).

Changes

  • .github/workflows/FormatCheck.yml: now calls SciML/.github/.github/workflows/runic.yml@v1 (the Runic check), replacing the JuliaFormatter format-check.yml@v1. Copied verbatim from the SciML fleet standard (identical to SciML/ADTypes.jl and SciML/SciMLBase.jl).
  • .github/workflows/RunicSuggestions.yml (new): calls SciML/.github/.github/workflows/runic-suggestions-on-pr.yml@v1, copied verbatim from the Runic siblings.
  • .github/workflows/FormatSuggestions.yml (removed): the JuliaFormatter format-suggestions-on-pr.yml@v1 workflow (merged in ci: add standard centralized workflows (auto-format, dependabot-automerge, docs-preview-cleanup) #1598). Removing it on this branch deletes it on merge.
  • .JuliaFormatter.toml (removed): unused by Runic.
  • Reformatted all tracked .jl files with Runic so the Runic check is green.

Runic formatting details

  • Runic version: v1.7.0 (installed via Pkg.add(name="Runic", version="1"), exactly as runic.yml@v1 / fredrikekre/runic-action@v1 does with its default runic-version: "1").
  • Scope: the same git ls-files -- *.jl set that runic.yml@v1 checks (10 tracked .jl files; SciMLBenchmarks is mostly .jmd, which is not in scope with the default extensions: jl).
  • Formatting was produced solely by Runic --inplace over that scope; no manual edits. Changes are mechanical (float-literal normalization like 1e-2->1.0e-2, trailing commas / bracket placement in multi-line arrays, space-after-comma in Tuple{String,String}, and CRLF->LF normalization in two files).
  • Verified locally by running the check exactly as CI does, Runic.main(["--check", "--diff", "--verbose", <files>]), which exits clean (rc=0): all 10 files report passing.

Generated with Claude Code

claude and others added 2 commits June 7, 2026 09:02
Adds the standard SciML centralized format-check caller workflow, which
was the remaining missing format workflow. SciMLBenchmarks is Runic-exempt,
so this uses the JuliaFormatter-family format-check.yml@v1 caller (matching
the JumpProcesses.jl form) rather than the Runic caller.

Co-Authored-By: Chris Rackauckas <accounts@chrisrackauckas.com>
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
SciMLBenchmarks is a Runic repo (per BDFL decree). Switch the format
tooling to match the SciML fleet standard:

- FormatCheck.yml now calls SciML/.github runic.yml@v1 (Runic check),
  matching SciML/ADTypes.jl and SciML/SciMLBase.jl.
- Add RunicSuggestions.yml calling runic-suggestions-on-pr.yml@v1.
- Remove FormatSuggestions.yml (JuliaFormatter suggestions workflow).
- Remove .JuliaFormatter.toml (unused by Runic).
- Reformat all tracked .jl files with Runic v1.7.0 so the Runic check
  is green. Formatting was produced solely by Runic --inplace over the
  same 'git ls-files -- *.jl' scope that runic.yml@v1 checks; no manual
  edits.

Co-Authored-By: Chris Rackauckas <accounts@chrisrackauckas.com>
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
@ChrisRackauckas-Claude ChrisRackauckas-Claude changed the title ci: add FormatCheck workflow (JuliaFormatter format-check@v1) ci: migrate format tooling from JuliaFormatter to Runic Jun 7, 2026
@ChrisRackauckas
ChrisRackauckas marked this pull request as ready for review June 7, 2026 16:20
@ChrisRackauckas
ChrisRackauckas merged commit f029dd6 into SciML:master Jun 7, 2026
5 of 7 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants