-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.1k
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. Weβll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[ruff] Fix some configuration warnings, activate flake8-pie, flake8-pyi, and pydocstyle #9593
[ruff] Fix some configuration warnings, activate flake8-pie, flake8-pyi, and pydocstyle #9593
Conversation
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests β
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #9593 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 95.81% 95.81%
=======================================
Files 173 173
Lines 18825 18825
=======================================
Hits 18038 18038
Misses 787 787
|
π€ According to the primer, this change has no effect on the checked open source code. π€π This comment was generated for commit fc669f7 |
@@ -11,8 +11,8 @@ | |||
|
|||
|
|||
class MyRawChecker(BaseRawFileChecker): | |||
"""Check for line continuations with '\' instead of using triple | |||
quoted string or parenthesis | |||
r"""Check for line continuations with '\' instead of using triple |
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.
Ironic update to use raw docstring in the MyRawChecker class π
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.
Did you know it was twice voted "most likely place to see dangerous raw characters in the doc" ?
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.
No :) what is that (doc)?
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.
Just joking π The doc would be the docstring in the raw checker where you explain about raw string and why you need them sometime.
I think I'd like to keep From my personal perspective development on |
Interesting that the message control from pylint is quoted as an exemple, thanks for linking this issue. Even ruff have long lived issue, troubling πAstral have 4/5 paid devs full time on ruff, it's probably because they chose to work on other things like I don't want to remove pydocstringformatter, but it seems to me the place to contribute big things is now in ruff/pydocstyle because of the hype and base speed, so wanted your opinion. (They have some autofix bugs so pydocstringformatter is better in some aspect, but also it already autofix things that pydocstringformatter did not catch). |
Fully agreed! I have been thinking about rewriting |
Type of Changes
Description
While working on another MR, I realized that there was a warning only seen when ruff fail for another reason.
Took the opportunity to add some useful ruff checks and fix the existing issues. It feels like pydocstringformatter is outclassed by the rust pydocstyle included in ruff, we could stop maintaining it and remove the pre-commit hook what do you think @DanielNoord ?