Add remark-arrow to list of plugins

[cocoliliace]

Initial checklist

• I read the support docs
• I read the contributing guide
• I agree to follow the code of conduct
• I searched issues and discussions and couldn’t find anything or linked relevant results below
• I made sure the docs are up to date
• I included tests (or that’s not needed)

Description of changes

Add remark-arrow to list of plugins.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 100.00%. Comparing base (ed7b185) to head (ff582d4).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##              main     #1457   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage   100.00%   100.00%           
=========================================
  Files            6         6           
  Lines          138       138           
=========================================
  Hits           138       138           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[remcohaszing]

Thanks! I like it!

[ChristianMurphy]

Thanks for sharing @cocoliliace !
The code looks good!

A few thoughts.

• consider adopting continuous integration/testing (CI/CD). I'm not as familiar with source hut, but it looks like it has its own hosted version at https://man.sr.ht/builds.sr.ht/
• Please also include a LICENSE (.txt,.md) in the repository with the license text.
• it looks like you are going for MPL 2.0, that license also requires a comment to be included in each source file https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/headers/

[cocoliliace]

Hi Christian thank you for your feedback and your thoughtful links :D.

• Is CI/CD required for plugins to be listed here? I had considered adding it but decided not to at this time. It requires a paid account on sourcehut, and I have already set up a git pre-commit hook to run the linter and tests locally before each commit.
• I had included the license text in the COPYING file. Looks like Github is able to detect the license from it if LICENSE is not found. Example: https://github.com/bminor/bash
• It looks like the header text is not strictly required, from Exhibit A in MPL-2.0:

If it is not possible or desirable to put the notice in a particular file, then You may include the notice in a location (such as a LICENSE file in a relevant directory) where a recipient would be likely to look for such a notice.

In my case it falls under the not desirable category, in my subjective view of what's desirable.

[ChristianMurphy]

Is CI/CD required for plugins to be listed here?

Generally yes, @remcohaszing put it well
syntax-tree/hast#24 (comment)

It requires a paid account on sourcehut

Unfortunate that they don't have a free for open source tier.

I have already set up a git pre-commit hook to run the linter and tests locally before each commit.

Which helps, but many contributors don't set them up or run them.
It also doesn't give a signal to adopters that there are tests and they work (a badge linking to CI/CD does).

Looks like Github is able to detect the license from it if LICENSE is not found.

You may want to check this comes through on the registry itself

Certain files are always included, regardless of settings:

package.json
README
CHANGES / CHANGELOG / HISTORY
LICENSE / LICENCE
NOTICE
The file in the "main" field

README, CHANGES, LICENSE & NOTICE can have any case and extension.

https://docs.npmjs.com/cli/v6/configuring-npm/package-json#license

In my case it falls under the not desirable category, in my subjective view of what's desirable.

Understood.
I see it as somewhat desirable.
It makes it easier for adopters to comply with 3.1

You must inform recipients that the Source Code Form of the Covered Software is governed by the terms of this License, and how they can obtain a copy of this License. You may not attempt to alter or restrict the recipients’ rights in the Source Code Form.

Most build tools preserve license headers even on built+minified files.

But you are right, MPL takes a softer take than some others on requiring it on individual files.

[cocoliliace]

You may want to check this comes through on the registry itself

Yes npm does not include it by default but I did manually include it in the files list in package.json and it shows up on the package page: https://www.npmjs.com/package/remark-arrow?activeTab=code

Is CI/CD required for plugins to be listed here?

Generally yes

Understood. Closing as I don't think I am able to meet the criteria at this time. Thank you Remco and Christian for the code review.

[github-actions]

Hi! This was closed. Team: If this was merged, please describe when this is likely to be released. Otherwise, please add one of the no/* labels.

[ChristianMurphy]

There are hosted CI servers with a free tier that could hook into source hut.
https://circleci.com
https://azure.microsoft.com/en-gb/products/devops/pipelines/
To name a couple

[cocoliliace]

I would like the development lifecycle to rely on as few third party servers as possible, and I currently don't have the hardware for self-hosting. I will maybe re-open this when I do set up my own CI server or when I start paying for sourcehut :)