I'm +1 on merging the proposals; it just seems easier. If not, I'd bring it as a followup proposal because I see value in this docstring linting.
On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 11:00 AM Matthias Dellweg <dell...@atix.de> wrote: > The core problem this proposal tried to counteract is, just like the > one with black, inconsistency across different repositories in the pulp > namespace. Some lint docstrings and others don't even adhere to the > linted style. Given the architecture of flake8 this leads to strange > effects when you try to lint your code in the pulplift boxes. > So what i really am aiming for here is consistency wrt to docstrings > and docstring linting. This sounds like beeing almost the same goal as > the black proposal. It would be fine for me to even merge those > proposals. > > Matthias > > On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 10:29:58 -0400 > David Davis <davidda...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > Black doesn't format docstrings[0] so it won't really help us. Flake8 > > is a wrapper for a collection of tools and the one that lints > > docstrings (pydocstyle[1]) can be run independently without flake8. > > So I think this questions around how/if to lint docstrings and > > whether or not we want to use black are independent. > > > > [0] https://github.com/python/black/issues/144 > > [1] https://github.com/PyCQA/pydocstyle > > > > David > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 10:05 AM Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> > > wrote: > > > > > @mdellweg if we adopt Black broadly, how does that affect your > > > proposal here? > > > > > > On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 11:50 AM Austin Macdonald > > > <aus...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > >> Something else to consider: some docstrings are rendered as > > >> user-facing documentation in the autogenerated REST docs. This > > >> means that docstring linting needs to be ignored for ViewSets. For > > >> example, I have a PR open that alters pulp_file viewset docstrings > > >> to contain html, to pass the linter, we have add docstring > > >> exceptions to the flake8 config. > > >> > > >> My initial reaction is that we might be better off keeping the > > >> flake8-docstring package out of pulplift, and we should also > > >> remove it from travis. > > >> > > >> > > >> On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 11:08 AM Matthias Dellweg <dell...@atix.de> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >>> tl;dr: Docstring linting is inconsistent across pulp repositories. > > >>> To make it consistent, do we want to enforce it everywhere, and > > >>> repair more than 700 findings? > > >>> > > >>> What started out as a oneliner [0] surfaced as a bigger problem: > > >>> > > >>> Whether flake8 performs linting on docstrings is solely dependent > > >>> (afaik) on the existence of a specific python package > > >>> (flake8-docstring) in the system. > > >>> At the same time, there are repositories (pulpcore, > > >>> pulpcore-plugin, ???) that do not install this package in their ci > > >>> pipeline, as well as repos that do (pulp_deb, pulp_ansible, ???). > > >>> So it is hard to select whether it should be installed in a > > >>> pulplift source box. > > >>> Not installing it means, there are linting errors showing up in > > >>> travis only, however installing it will prevent linting pulpcore > > >>> locally. > > >>> That said, i think we should follow the same linting rules in all > > >>> repositories, and more specific i tend to include docstring > > >>> linting. However there are over 700 findings in pulpcore alone. > > >>> > > >>> [0] https://github.com/pulp/pulpcore/pull/138 > > >>> _______________________________________________ > > >>> Pulp-dev mailing list > > >>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com > > >>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev > > >>> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> Pulp-dev mailing list > > >> Pulp-dev@redhat.com > > >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev > > >> > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Pulp-dev mailing list > > > Pulp-dev@redhat.com > > > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
