Thank you for your contribution to Astropy! 🌌 This checklist is meant to remind the package maintainers who will review this pull request of some common things to look for.

• Do the proposed changes actually accomplish desired goals?
• Do the proposed changes follow the Astropy coding guidelines?
• Are tests added/updated as required? If so, do they follow the Astropy testing guidelines?
• Are docs added/updated as required? If so, do they follow the Astropy documentation guidelines?
• Is rebase and/or squash necessary? If so, please provide the author with appropriate instructions. Also see instructions for rebase and squash.
• Did the CI pass? If no, are the failures related? If you need to run daily and weekly cron jobs as part of the PR, please apply the "Extra CI" label. Codestyle issues can be fixed by the bot.
• Is a change log needed? If yes, did the change log check pass? If no, add the "no-changelog-entry-needed" label. If this is a manual backport, use the "skip-changelog-checks" label unless special changelog handling is necessary.
• Is this a big PR that makes a "What's new?" entry worthwhile and if so, is (1) a "what's new" entry included in this PR and (2) the "whatsnew-needed" label applied?
• Is a milestone set? Milestone must be set but we cannot check for it on Actions; do not let the green checkmark fool you.
• At the time of adding the milestone, if the milestone set requires a backport to release branch(es), apply the appropriate "backport-X.Y.x" label(s) before merge.

👋 Thank you for your draft pull request! Do you know that you can use [ci skip] or [skip ci] in your commit messages to skip running continuous integration tests until you are ready?

I am opening this PR so that we can discuss the pros/cons of using this.

In future I'd like to only think about the contents of this file, not how it's formatted, so I'm in favor of this PR.
Automate away.

Maybe put this in the next dev telecon agenda? I am neutral and I am interested in what other devs think.

p.s. I find pre-commit a bit of a pain in slowing down development; this presumably is very fast if pyproject.toml is not touched?

Interesting. What step in pre-commit is slow?

The remove star is slow.

On run or only run -a?

I find it a bit slow on run -a, but not run (unless I've edited every file in GH, of course)

Ping @Saransh-cpp for this discussion of speed.

It is the collection. And, no, it is not that slow, it is just enough to be irritating, that's why I'm a bit wary of adding more steps. (Plus I fairly regularly clean up the repository with git clean -fxd, and then one has to reinstall, but that's arguably on me.)

It is the collection. And, no, it is not that slow, it is just enough to be irritating

Interesting. I'm on an M2 MBPro and it's fast enough I don't notice.
I wonder what steps are slow, maybe black & removestar? They have to build an AST in Python. The rest are regex or rust

removestar is noticeably slow for me.

We could move removestar to a cron job, or if asmeurer/removestar#51 (or similar) can speed it up...

Thanks for the ping!

Re pyproject-fmt:

The hook was not added to scientific-python's development guide because it was not very flexible - scikit-hep/scikit-hep.github.io#214 (scikit-hep.github.io was ported to create learn.scientific-python.org/development). I've also discovered some bugs in the tool in the past, and though I planned to work on them, I never got the time :(

(not completely against the hook, some of my repositories use it, some of them don't, and I really appreciate the work done on it, everything depends on how well it fits within astropy!)

Re removestar's speed:

I can shift it to the cron job until I profile and identify the bottleneck. This might take some time, and I am not sure when I'll start working on it 🙂

Hi humans 👋 - this pull request hasn't had any new commits for approximately 4 months. I plan to close this in 30 days if the pull request doesn't have any new commits by then.

In lieu of a stalled pull request, please consider closing this and open an issue instead if a reminder is needed to revisit in the future. Maintainers may also choose to add keep-open label to keep this PR open but it is discouraged unless absolutely necessary.

If this PR still needs to be reviewed, as an author, you can rebase it to reset the clock.

If you believe I commented on this pull request incorrectly, please report this here.

I'm going to close this pull request as per my previous message. If you think what is being added/fixed here is still important, please remember to open an issue to keep track of it. Thanks!

If this is the first time I am commenting on this issue, or if you believe I closed this issue incorrectly, please report this here.