On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 4:39 PM David Davis <davidda...@redhat.com> wrote:
> 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. > +1 this sounds good to me. > 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