Given the generally favorable response so far to using black, I was thinking of writing up a PUP to add black into pulpcore, pulpcore-plugin, pulp_file, and pulp_template. And to make it the recommended format for plugins. I can include docstring linting in that PUP as well.
David On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 9:25 AM Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> wrote: > 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
