docs: typo - version_provider vs provider #848
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
DomWeldon
force-pushed
the
fix/docs-provider-vs-version-provider
branch
from
c25f1bc to
5de87d7
Compare
Codecov ReportPatch coverage is
📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know!. |
Lee-W
approved these changes
Sep 23, 2023
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description
Trivial error in the docs, but it caught me out setting up config for a library earlier. The configuration docs currently say that
versionis required ifprovider = "commitizen", however, the correct key for this config value isversion_provider(although such providers live in thecommitizen.providernamespace and I wouldn't be surprised if choosing this name was discussed during the implementation of this feature, but haven't checked).Additional context
Please advise if I have misunderstood the config. Have read the relevant source code and got my implementation working nicely, but keen to be corrected if I have missed some nuance.