[Pulp-dev] black

[Dana Walker]

I think it's important to note that Django voted to adopt it once it is out
of beta and stable, which is not yet the case.

I was surprised they went for it instead of autopep8 or other options given
the reason the pulp_python team closed the PR for black was that it was not
pep8 compliant.  Maybe black has since improved in that area, but it's
another downside to keep in mind and discuss/look into.

Given that there would still be the need for checking flake8 and pep8 in
addition and it only adds yet another requirement and does not eliminate
the need for other tools, I'm slightly opposed, but certainly open to any
auto formatter if folks feel the consistency and lack of worry on context
switching is worth it.

--Dana

Dana Walker

She / Her / Hers

Software Engineer, Pulp Project

Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com>

dawalker at redhat.com
<https://www.redhat.com>



On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 8:27 AM David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com> wrote:

> I wanted to get feedback from the Pulp community on using black[0] to
> auto-format our Pulp 3 code. I have some mixed feelings about it as I see
> some potential benefits of using it but also some downsides as well.
>
> For potential upsides, I think it would be nice if all our projects in
> Pulp conformed to the same style. It would make switching between projects
> much easier. I've worked on other projects where each repository had its
> own code style and it added a mental tax switching from one project to
> another. Granted, this was in Ruby whose design incorporates the TMTOWTDI
> philosophy[1] while Python's design is based around the principle "there
> should be one way to do it"[2].
>
> Moreover, using black would effectively take style comments/noise out of
> PR reviews and we could just focus on logic. It integrates with a lot of
> IDEs[3] and you can also set up a git pre-commit hook[4] so it would also I
> think free developers from having to worry about formatting their code
> while developing.
>
> The main downside to black I see is that not everyone is going to love it.
> It's highly opinionated and even personally, I don't like all the stylistic
> decisions they've made. I guess it's a question if we can all live with it
> or not. I feel much more confident in it since other projects like
> django[5] have adopted it as well as Pulp QE.
>
> There's a PR open currently against pulp_rpm[6] and one that was closed
> against pulp_python[7]. I think if enough people are interested in using
> black, we would update pulpcore, the plugin template, and possibly
> pulp_file to use black. We could also recommend it to plugins but of course
> we wouldn't/couldn't enforce its use.
>
> [0] https://github.com/python/black
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There%27s_more_than_one_way_to_do_it
> [2] https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0020/#id3
> [3] https://github.com/python/black#editor-integration
> [4] https://github.com/python/black#version-control-integration
> [5] https://github.com/django/deps/blob/master/accepted/0008-black.rst
> [6] https://github.com/pulp/pulp_rpm/pull/1355
> [7] https://github.com/pulp/pulp_python/pull/177
>
> David
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190604/0f3c618f/attachment.htm>