SCSS linter, formatter

[JosepSalvat]

Good morning,
As far as I know, BiomeJS have support CSS, is it possible to make it work for SCSS also?
We've SCSS Module (like CSS Modules, but with SCSS).
Thanks!

[ematipico]

The core team won't focus on this for this year, but you're free to collect interest and maybe evaluate to contribute it

[YanPes]

Is there a plan to add it this year?

[ematipico]

https://biomejs.dev/blog/roadmap-2025/

[SalahAdDin]

https://biomejs.dev/blog/roadmap-2025/

No plans about SCSS.

[pooya-badiee]

Would be Great to have, makes us able to delete prettier

[Danielku15]

Would it be an option to enable a "best effort parsing" for SCSS (for the VS Code extension)?

I realized that in many files I use primarily syntax which has landed in standard CSS (CSS modules, CSS nesting, CSS variables). I still use SCSS as primary file format and in some exceptions I still use SCSS features. In most cases Biome should be able to handle my "SCSS" files as they only contain pure "CSS" code.

But when attempting to format I get a

[SalahAdDin]

I also have issues with HTML, so, It seems We will have to comeback to Prettier.

[muuvmuuv]

I am also just using the nice nesting from SCSS but no other SCSS features :/

[ematipico]

I am a bit afraid of the knockout effect it could have. It's a nice idea, but as a maintainer I'm afraid that a lot of people will misunderstand what it is, and will start asking for more, or will file issues regardless of what we write in the documentation.

If Biome starts supporting SCSS files, where's the line "this is supported, and this isn't?".

[artkub]

I understand your concerns and thank you for your great work on Biome.
Would you consider adding an "extensions" or "matchFiles" option to the CSS section in the config file ?

{
  "css": {
    "extensions": [ ".css", ".css.tmpl", ".scss", ".less" ],
    // or
    "matchFiles": [ "src/**/*.scss" ],
  }
}

Or something similar that would allow users to define which files should be considered as CSS files. I believe that this would satisfy the use cases discussed above and would avoid any confusion about SCSS being an officially supported file format.

[SalahAdDin]

I am a bit afraid of the knockout effect it could have. It's a nice idea, but as a maintainer I'm afraid that a lot of people will misunderstand what it is, and will start asking for more, or will file issues regardless of what we write in the documentation.

If Biome starts supporting SCSS files, where's the line "this is supported, and this isn't?".

What about a plug-in?

[ThiefMaster]

I'd also like to see at least partial SCSS formatting. Fine to not format files using obscure syntax (e.g. indentation-based Sass) or more complex features, but if the vast majority of files that just use basic things which look like valid CSS anyway, and maybe simple things like @mixin syntax, were formatted, it'd already be a huge plus.

[ws-rob]

This would be a fantastic feature. It's the only reason we're still hanging on to Prettier on projects with SCSS. I appreciate @ematipico's point about where to draw the line, but SASS is still widely used, and has first-party support in cutting edge tools like Vite.

[ematipico]

I know it will, don't get me wrong. But we're just a few people, and we direct our contributions towards what we like most!

I focused my time towards HTML and such because I also get something in return, and I need it.

Again, people can consider contributing and landing the feature. We didn't say no, we just don't have the capacity

[pooya-badiee]

@ematipico Just wanted to add my appreciation, Biome is a lot of work, and it already brings so much value even without SCSS support.
Thank you to the whole Biome team!

[ws-rob]

@ematipico Your work is appreciated. I'm using Biome in some JS-only projects and it is amazing.

[MrBns]

Is this possible to get .SCSS support this year ? :-)

[denbezrukov]

I've created an umbrella ticket to track the SCSS implementation.
#8732