Re: [vdsm] pylint in make check-local
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 01:11:41PM +, Dan Kenigsberg wrote: > On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 01:21:11PM +0100, Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 11:44:37AM +, Dan Kenigsberg wrote: > > > While I'm waiting for more acks/nacks, could infra add "pylint" to our > > > Jenkins slaves? > > > > Is the version in EL6 recent enough or do we have to ship our own > > version? (EL6 is 0.21.1) > > > > Please review http://gerrit.ovirt.org/24556 > > Let's take the standard one, and move to something more modern (such as > Fedora's 1.0.0) when the need arrises. Sounds good. Patch merged and somewhere during the next 30 minutes it should be deployed on all slaves. ___ vdsm-devel mailing list vdsm-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/vdsm-devel
Re: [vdsm] pylint in make check-local
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 01:21:11PM +0100, Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden wrote: > On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 11:44:37AM +, Dan Kenigsberg wrote: > > While I'm waiting for more acks/nacks, could infra add "pylint" to our > > Jenkins slaves? > > Is the version in EL6 recent enough or do we have to ship our own > version? (EL6 is 0.21.1) > > Please review http://gerrit.ovirt.org/24556 Let's take the standard one, and move to something more modern (such as Fedora's 1.0.0) when the need arrises. ___ vdsm-devel mailing list vdsm-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/vdsm-devel
Re: [vdsm] pylint in make check-local
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 11:44:37AM +, Dan Kenigsberg wrote: > While I'm waiting for more acks/nacks, could infra add "pylint" to our > Jenkins slaves? Is the version in EL6 recent enough or do we have to ship our own version? (EL6 is 0.21.1) Please review http://gerrit.ovirt.org/24556 ___ vdsm-devel mailing list vdsm-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/vdsm-devel
Re: [vdsm] pylint in make check-local
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 03:00:21AM -0500, Francesco Romani wrote: > > > > > Recently, we've had a bugs > > http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/24242/ > > that could have been avoided had we used pylint to check our code before > > its usage. Two other bugs-in-waiting can be quickly removed > > http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/24313/ > > http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/24412/ > > > > I would like to suggest > > http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/24382/ > > "make check: add a pylint check" > > > > We have a long way to go before pylint is happy with our code, but I > > believe that pylinting some of our modules is a good start. > > > > The down sides are many: it's slow, it's another dependency, it has > > false negatives, and I do not yet understand how it behaves > > (particularly, the interdependency between checked modules). > > > > What do you think? Should we add it? > > +1 > > My take: I am for it, or at very least to give it a try, following the path > you suggested. > > I use pylint in a few other projects and it saved me from some bugs > and led to improvements. > IMO it is worth its price. While I'm waiting for more acks/nacks, could infra add "pylint" to our Jenkins slaves? Regarding Nir's on-gerrit comment: I'd like to have pylint run by default in order to avoid adding new pylint-detectable bugs. If we do not add a pylint_blacklist now, I do not believe we'd ever make it empty. ___ vdsm-devel mailing list vdsm-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/vdsm-devel
Re: [vdsm] pylint in make check-local
- Original Message - > From: "Dan Kenigsberg" > To: "vdsm-devel" > Cc: lbed...@redhat.com > Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 11:25:57 PM > Subject: [vdsm] pylint in make check-local > > Recently, we've had a bugs > http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/24242/ > that could have been avoided had we used pylint to check our code before > its usage. Two other bugs-in-waiting can be quickly removed > http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/24313/ > http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/24412/ > > I would like to suggest > http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/24382/ > "make check: add a pylint check" > > We have a long way to go before pylint is happy with our code, but I > believe that pylinting some of our modules is a good start. > > The down sides are many: it's slow, it's another dependency, it has > false negatives, and I do not yet understand how it behaves > (particularly, the interdependency between checked modules). > > What do you think? Should we add it? +1 My take: I am for it, or at very least to give it a try, following the path you suggested. I use pylint in a few other projects and it saved me from some bugs and led to improvements. IMO it is worth its price. -- Francesco Romani RedHat Engineering Virtualization R & D Phone: 8261328 IRC: fromani ___ vdsm-devel mailing list vdsm-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/vdsm-devel
[vdsm] pylint in make check-local
Recently, we've had a bugs http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/24242/ that could have been avoided had we used pylint to check our code before its usage. Two other bugs-in-waiting can be quickly removed http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/24313/ http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/24412/ I would like to suggest http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/24382/ "make check: add a pylint check" We have a long way to go before pylint is happy with our code, but I believe that pylinting some of our modules is a good start. The down sides are many: it's slow, it's another dependency, it has false negatives, and I do not yet understand how it behaves (particularly, the interdependency between checked modules). What do you think? Should we add it? Regards, Dan. ___ vdsm-devel mailing list vdsm-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/vdsm-devel
