Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add Python coding standards to doc #313

Closed
lb324567 opened this issue Oct 11, 2022 · 2 comments · Fixed by #316
Closed

Add Python coding standards to doc #313

lb324567 opened this issue Oct 11, 2022 · 2 comments · Fixed by #316
Assignees
Labels
enhancement Improvement to an existing part of the documentation
Milestone

Comments

@lb324567
Copy link
Member

lb324567 commented Oct 11, 2022

As part of gaffer-tools 137 Python coding standards must be met for code to pass in the CI.
gaffer-doc needs to be updated with information on these coding styles so that everyone developing for the repos knows the standards that we are not enforcing in the codebase. Documentation has been started, so just needs to be moved over.

@muskaan04
Copy link

i would like to contribute please explain what to do?

@GCHQDeveloper314 GCHQDeveloper314 added enhancement Improvement to an existing part of the documentation and removed good first issue Small, lower complexity and requiring limited Gaffer knowledge labels Oct 11, 2022
@GCHQDeveloper314
Copy link
Member

Hello @muskaan04, unfortunately this isn't something we need any help with. My colleague created this to track some work they had already started, but used the wrong tag by mistake.

lb324567 added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 20, 2022
Update docs with guidance on the Python coding standards we are enforcing
@t92549 t92549 added this to the v2.0.0 milestone Oct 20, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement Improvement to an existing part of the documentation
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

4 participants