[Pulp-dev] Docstring linting

[Brian Bouterse]

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/20190605/578019e5/attachment.htm>