Making flow check result prettier and easier to read

[coodoo]

Currently flow check results looks like this, which is a bit hard to read and understand what the error really is:

/Users/folder/zzz.js:14:2,11: 
class property initializers are not yet supported

/Users/folder/zzz.js:22:9,24: function call
Error:
/Users/folder/zzz.js:22:14,15: number
This type is incompatible with
/Users/folder/zzz.js:7:19,24: string

Found 2 errors

Wouldn't it be nicer to be like this:

Created: Tue Sep 01 2015 19:37:14 GMT+0800 (CST)
Total Errors: 2

Error:
  /Users/folder/zzz.js, line 14
  t1 = '00';
  ↑ class property initializers are not yet supported

Error:
  /Users/folder/zzz.js, line 22
  var k = foo( 33, 'a22' );
               ↑ expecting "string", got "number"

  From:
    /Users/folder/zzz.js, line 7
    function foo( bar:string, coo:number ):Array<string> {

I've built a simple parser in javascript to do just that, but thought it would be a really nice feature out of the box.

As a side note, I might go ahead and build a plugin for sublime text editor so that errors can be marked inline and a popup will show up when mouse hover over it, à la mode most IDEs out there (ie: Eclipse, Visual Studio).

[nmn]

@coodoo I was thinking of doing a sublime linter myself, but my python isn't great. I currently work on linter-flow-plus for atom (I will also update linter-flow as well)

[coodoo]

Sounds good, please keep me posted if you do decide to go ahead and build that, thanks.

[coodoo]

I went ahead and created flowery which runs as a CLI and API tool.

[samwgoldman]

@coodoo This is very cool!

[nmn]

@coodoo I'm reading the SublimeLinter documentation trying to make sense of it all. My python is really quite rusty.

But linter-flow-plus supports error + trace, the same way that flowery does. Using the --json flag on flow helps a lot.