Clarify ruff functionality. #403
Conversation
| {%- if 'ruff_lint' in enforce_style %} | ||
| - repo: https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff-pre-commit | ||
| # Ruff version. | ||
| rev: v0.1.3 | ||
| hooks: | ||
| - id: ruff | ||
| name: Format and lint code using ruff | ||
| name: Lint code using ruff | ||
| types_or: [ python, pyi, jupyter ] | ||
| args: ["check"] | ||
| {%- endif %} | ||
| {%- if 'ruff_format' in enforce_style %} | ||
| - repo: https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff-pre-commit | ||
| # Ruff version. | ||
| rev: v0.1.3 | ||
| hooks: | ||
| - id: ruff | ||
| name: Format code using ruff | ||
| types_or: [ python, pyi, jupyter ] | ||
| args: ["format", "--check"] | ||
| {%- endif %} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure why the hook's readme proposes to put hooks in this order. If we do this, the linter would fail for some bad formatting (for example long lines), before formatter runs. I suggest to swap the order, so formatter runs first and fixes some linting issues
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think I agree with the ruff folks on this one!
Since the pre-commit is mostly about warning, and not about fixing the changes, I'm a fan of the lint-first-then-format ordering. This would also alert sooner about "code smell" type problems, before alerting about more minor formatting issues.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
My point is that we can automatically fix formatting with the first hook, instead of fail
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'll move this discussion to a new issue. Thank you!
Change Description
Closes #395
Closes #384
Checklist
lincc-frameworks/python-project-templaterepo and not a downstream one instead.