[Pulp-dev] Docstring linting

[Brian Bouterse]

On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 4:39 PM David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com> 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 docstring linting in that PUP as well.
>
+1 this sounds good to me.


> David
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 9:25 AM Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> 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 <dellweg at atix.de> wrote:
>>
>>> 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 to lint your code in the pulplift boxes.
>>> So what i really am aiming for here is consistency wrt to docstrings
>>> and docstring linting. This sounds like beeing almost the same goal as
>>> the black proposal. It would be fine for me to even merge those
>>> proposals.
>>>
>>> Matthias
>>>
>>> On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 10:29:58 -0400
>>> David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > 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 are independent.
>>> >
>>> > [0] https://github.com/python/black/issues/144
>>> > [1] https://github.com/PyCQA/pydocstyle
>>> >
>>> > David
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 10:05 AM Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > @mdellweg if we adopt Black broadly, how does that affect your
>>> > > proposal here?
>>> > >
>>> > > On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 11:50 AM Austin Macdonald
>>> > > <austin at redhat.com> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > >> 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 have add docstring
>>> > >> exceptions to the flake8 config.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> My initial reaction is that we might be better off keeping the
>>> > >> flake8-docstring package out of pulplift, and we should also
>>> > >> remove it from travis.
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >> On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 11:08 AM Matthias Dellweg <dellweg at atix.de>
>>> > >> wrote:
>>> > >>
>>> > >>> 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
>>> > >>> (afaik) on the existence of a specific python package
>>> > >>> (flake8-docstring) in the system.
>>> > >>> At the same time, there are repositories (pulpcore,
>>> > >>> pulpcore-plugin, ???) that do not install this package in their ci
>>> > >>> pipeline, as well as repos that do (pulp_deb, pulp_ansible, ???).
>>> > >>> So it is hard to select whether it should be installed in a
>>> > >>> pulplift source box.
>>> > >>> Not installing it means, there are linting errors showing up in
>>> > >>> travis only, however installing it will prevent linting pulpcore
>>> > >>> locally.
>>> > >>> That said, i think we should follow the same linting rules in all
>>> > >>> repositories, and more specific i tend to include docstring
>>> > >>> linting. However there are over 700 findings in pulpcore alone.
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> [0] https://github.com/pulp/pulpcore/pull/138
>>> > >>> _______________________________________________
>>> > >>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>> > >>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>> > >>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>> > >>>
>>> > >> _______________________________________________
>>> > >> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>> > >> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>> > >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>> > >>
>>> > > _______________________________________________
>>> > > Pulp-dev mailing list
>>> > > Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>> > > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20190606/388908ba/attachment.htm>