Re: [Pulp-dev] Docstring linting

+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 wrote: > +1 > > Dana Walker > > She / Her / Hers > > Software Engineer, Pulp Project > > Red Hat > > dawal...@redhat.com >

Re: [Pulp-dev] Docstring linting

+1 Dana Walker She / Her / Hers Software Engineer, Pulp Project Red Hat dawal...@redhat.com On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 1:34 PM Brian Bouterse wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 4:39 PM David Davis wrote: > >> Given the generally favorable re

Re: [Pulp-dev] Docstring linting

On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 4:39 PM David Davis 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 do

Re: [Pulp-dev] Docstring linting

+1 to create a PUP. I think PUP will help us identify pros and cons that will contribute to the final decision. Team is generally favourable to use black, but as mentioned in other email thread it does create mixed feelings. Regards, Ina Panova Senior Software Engineer| Pulp| Red Hat Inc

Re: [Pulp-dev] Docstring linting

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,

Re: [Pulp-dev] Docstring linting

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 wrote: > The core problem this proposal tried to counteract is, just like the > one with black, incon

Re: [Pulp-dev] Docstring linting

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

Re: [Pulp-dev] Docstring linting

Great, thanks for the info. Then I'm +1 on adopting the use of pydocstyle to have great docstrings. AIUI this was the original desire of @mdellweg's proposal. On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 10:30 AM David Davis wrote: > Black doesn't format docstrings[0] so it won't really help us. Flake8 is a > wrapper

Re: [Pulp-dev] Docstring linting

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

Re: [Pulp-dev] Docstring linting

@mdellweg if we adopt Black broadly, how does that affect your proposal here? On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 11:50 AM Austin Macdonald wrote: > Something else to consider: some docstrings are rendered as user-facing > documentation in the autogenerated REST docs. This means that docstring > linting nee

Re: [Pulp-dev] Docstring linting

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 ha

[Pulp-dev] Docstring linting

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 (afa