Scout format !

[o0Ignition0o]

Will fix #72 sooner than expected :D
todo: handle relative/absolute paths in the rustfmt linter, and later provide a --fix option

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #74 into master will increase coverage by 7.2%.
The diff coverage is 91.18%.

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##           master      #74     +/-   ##
=========================================
+ Coverage   85.34%   92.54%   +7.2%     
=========================================
  Files           5        7      +2     
  Lines         546      604     +58     
=========================================
+ Hits          466      559     +93     
+ Misses         80       45     -35

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
cargo-scout-lib/src/vcs/git.rs	92.2% <100%> (-0.65%)	⬇️
cargo-scout-lib/src/utils.rs	100% <100%> (ø)
cargo-scout-lib/src/linter/clippy.rs	85% <81.81%> (+14.93%)	⬆️
cargo-scout-lib/src/linter/rustfmt.rs	89.55% <89.55%> (ø)
cargo-scout/src/main.rs	96.29% <90%> (+32.4%)	⬆️
cargo-scout-lib/src/scout/mod.rs	97.12% <95.23%> (+3.04%)	⬆️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 85f41a1...2226b1a. Read the comment docs.

[o0Ignition0o]

I'm going to work on tests, and submit it.

[o0Ignition0o]

Yay CI passes after 3 minutes instead of 15

[o0Ignition0o]

@daubaris @undef1nd @ebroto If anyone has a bit of time to have a look at this? ^^.
The major change is that cargo-scout has now two subcommands, fmt and lint.

Next up we want to add a --fix option to the subcommands, so the lints try to get fixed instead of being displayed ^^

[ebroto]

Hey @o0Ignition0o, this is a great step forward for cargo-scout!

I think there's only a minor problem with the CI, the rest of comments I left are nits :)

Awesome job!

[ebroto]

Also, not related to this PR though, some thoughts on usability.

I was testing the changes on an old copy of the repo, and the master branch was really old. I forgot that the default target branch is master (I was on this branch), so I was not getting the expected results.

Do you think that it would make sense to use HEAD as the default target? I believe this is what most users would expect.

[o0Ignition0o]

That's a very good idea indeed, let's file an issue for it, it probably would make more sense than master as a default setting !

[o0Ignition0o]

Thank you so much for such a thorough review, that allowed us to catch the bug !
I'm going to bump the version and release it.
The next milestone will diff against HEAD and feature --fix :D