@Andre601 Is this pr ready for review?

The Pull request of @Andre601 has been marked as Ready!

It can now be reviewed and/or merged by Maintainers.

This is an automated response created by a GitHub Action
Mentioning the bot won't have any effect!

@abhijoshi2k Please review

The changelog is handled in #41 :)

@Andre601 @PuneetGopinath
Can we remove RECENT_ACTIVITY:end and RECENT_ACTIVITY:last_update_end from the Options table?
It might confuse the users. Also, users don't have to add it themselves. Workflow will take care of it.
I can see that you clearly mentioned this fact. But I still feel we should remove those rows.

The changelog is handled in #41 :)

Ok

@Andre601 @PuneetGopinath
Can we remove RECENT_ACTIVITY:end and RECENT_ACTIVITY:last_update_end from the Options table?
It might confuse the users. Also, users don't have to add it themselves. Workflow will take care of it.
I can see that you clearly mentioned this fact. But I still feel we should remove those rows.

Oh yes, you are right
@Andre601 Can you remove I am little busy.

@Andre601 Can we add a Wiki to show supported placeholders in date format?
f.e. dd/mm/yyyy or dddd mmmm ds etc.

Supported formats: https://www.npmjs.com/package/dateformat

We support the masked options as well as named formats

@Andre601 Can we add a Wiki to show supported placeholders in date format?

Supported formats: https://www.npmjs.com/package/dateformat

We support the masked options as well as named formats

You can get raw README of that package on this repo: https://github.com/felixge/node-dateformat

@Andre601 Can we add a Wiki to show supported placeholders in date format?

Supported formats: https://www.npmjs.com/package/dateformat

We support the masked options as well as named formats

Added an example

I was thinking we can add something like this:

I was thinking we can add something like this:

It's available here : https://github.com/felixge/node-dateformat

Not worth to add this info imo if it already exists. I already link to the npm package and that should be enough.

You should better try to fix the conflicts in this PR because I won't touch JS stuff here.

Not worth to add this info imo if it already exists. I already link to the npm package and that should be enough.

You should better try to fix the conflicts in this PR because I won't touch JS stuff here.

Okay. I'll resolve the conflicts.
Should I merge after that?

Not worth to add this info imo if it already exists. I already link to the npm package and that should be enough.
You should better try to fix the conflicts in this PR because I won't touch JS stuff here.

Okay. I'll resolve the conflicts.
Should I merge after that?

No, after resolving conflicts you should pull branch updation-time into update-readme.

@abhijoshi2k Better delete node_modules folder.
I messaged you in discord that "Yes, I afterwards saw in GitHub docs that if you use ncc then you should remove node_modules folder.
We are using @vercel/ncc npm package"

Better I itself will delete, because you started working and you are not going to see my comment

Better I itself will delete, because you started working and you are not going to see my comment

The bot added it back

Better I itself will delete, because you started working and you are not going to see my comment

The bot added it back

Yeah, I see I will force push

Better I itself will delete, because you started working and you are not going to see my comment

The bot added it back

Yeah, I see I will force push

I think it's fine if we have node_modules. Only the cache files cause conflicts which can be ignored

Why? GitHub docs itself says to remove it and and node_modules to .gitignore

Idk why, but I don't see any conflicts on local. Should I merge this into updation-time then?

Conflicts seem resolved. Just the action was failing for some reason, but I leave this up to you to figure out

They fail because there is nothing to commit, or no changes happen to the files when you run npm run build and npm run format.