[Pulp-dev] black

Brian Bouterse bbouters at redhat.com
Tue Jun 4 13:30:23 UTC 2019

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.

+1 to adopting black for any/all pulp projects. The upsides >> downsides
for me. I would rather work on a project that has code consistency and
tooling to enforce it. I agree it would allows the code logic to be the
focus, and the style disagreements disappear. I know one of the hangups is
double quotes, and I don't love them either. Still, I value the
readability/consistency much more than any issue I have w/ the Black
projects' decisions.

> 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/20190604/1aa8dc08/attachment.htm>

More information about the Pulp-dev mailing list