[Pulp-dev] Docstring linting

[David Davis]

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.

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/20190605/8fea4714/attachment.htm>