+1 to create a PUP (-0 to actually adopting it. No particularly strong feelings though.)
On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 4:21 PM Dana Walker <dawal...@redhat.com> wrote: > +1 > > Dana Walker > > She / Her / Hers > > Software Engineer, Pulp Project > > Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com> > > dawal...@redhat.com > <https://www.redhat.com> > > > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 1:34 PM Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> >> >> 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 >> > _______________________________________________ > 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
