-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 78
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
pre-commit linting #248
pre-commit linting #248
Conversation
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #248 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 95.84% 95.77% -0.08%
==========================================
Files 15 15
Lines 1927 1916 -11
==========================================
- Hits 1847 1835 -12
- Misses 80 81 +1 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
Most of the diff standardises formatting which it changed automatically. There were a few things which it didn't fix automatically with obvious fixes that I fixed, anything not so obvious I've told the linter to ignore using |
Errors I fixedtests\helpers.py:349:12: F401 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is great, @andrewgsavage. I would like to remove the # noqa
s by addressing them, but already what is here is an improvement, so I think we can merge this big change for now and come back to the individual linter issues in follow up PRs.
+1 from me. Also, we should ALWAYS ignore alleged failures from codecov. A change in coverage score is not ever a failure that prevents merging. codecov is very, very wrong here. |
No description provided.