Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

(Test PR) Investigate CodeQL output (from copyedit branch) #4

Closed
wants to merge 11 commits into from

Conversation

EliahKagan
Copy link
Owner

This further improves the text previously introduced in gitpython-developers#1829 and
improved in gitpython-developers#1844.
The fragment of the refresh failure message (which is often written
to a terminal) about the effect of setting GIT_PYTHON_REFRESH to
control refesh failure reporting had previously been formatted with
a maximum line length of 79 columns--in the message itself, not the
code for the message--so that it would fit in a traditional 80
column wide terminal. This remains one of the popular widths to set
for terminal windows in a GUI, so it seems worthwhile to preserve.

In 3a6e3ef (gitpython-developers#1815), I had inadvertently made the line one character
too long for that; at 80 columns, it would cause the newline to be
written at the start of the next line, creating an unsightly extra
line break.

This is pretty minor, but what seems to me like an equally good
alternative wording avoids it, so this commit shortens the wording.
The git.db.partial_to_complete_sha_hex docstring refers to
"AmbiguousObjects", suggesting the existence of an AmbiguousObject
type (or an AmbiguousObjects type).

Since there appears to be no such type in GitPython (or in gitdb),
this seems to have been written in reference to the condition
expressed by the AmbiguousObjectName exception, which the note
says is not currently able to be raised (such that BadObject is
raised instead) in situations where it would apply.

Since the connection to that exeception is already clear from
context, this commit changes the wording to "ambiguous objects" to
avoid being misread as a reference to a Python class of ambiguous
objects.
This converts it from a specially formatted comment to a docstring
(gitpython-developers#1734), rewords for clarity, and removes the mention of unicode,
which appears to have been referring to the data type.

(GitPython no longer supports Python 2, and unicode is not a
separate type from str in Python 3, where instead str and bytes
are different types.)
For slightly easier reading.
- Replace the goo.gl web shortlink with a Sphinx reference that
  displays and also (in built documentation) becomes a hyperlink to
  the documentation on the method being referred to.

- Refer to a related class (which is in another module) as being
  in the module where it is defined, rather than in the top-level
  git module (where it also can be accessed because it is imported
  there, which is reasonable to do, but less clear documentation).

- Tweak punctuation so the effect of passing None is a bit clearer.
Except for:

- git.cmd, where docstrings were revised in e08066c.

- git.types, where docstring changes may best be made together with
  changes to how imports are organized and documented, which seems
  not to be in the same scope as the changes in this commit.

This change, as well as those in e08066c, are largely along the
lines of gitpython-developers#1725, with most revisions here being to docstrings and a
few being to comments.

The major differences between the kinds of docstring changes here
and those ind gitpython-developers#1725 are that the changes here push somewhat harder
for consistency and apply some kinds of changes I was reluctant to
apply widely in gitpython-developers#1725:

- Wrap all docstrings and comments to 88 columns, except for parts
  that are decisively clearer when not wrapped. Note that semi-
  paragraph changes represented as single newlines are still kept
  where meaningful, which is one reason this is not always the same
  effect as automatic wrapping would produce.

- Avoid code formatting (double backticks) for headings that
  precede sections and code blocks. This was done enough that it
  seems to have been intentional, but it doesn't really have the
  right semantics, and the documentation is currently rendering in
  such a way (including on readthedocs.org) where removing that
  formatting seems clearly better.

- References (single backticks with a role prefix) and code spans
  (double backticks) everywhere applicable, even in the first lines
  of docstrings.

- Single-backticks around parameter names, with no role prefix.
  These were mostly either formatted that way or emphasized (with
  asterisks). This is one of the rare cases that I have used single
  backticks without a role prefix, which ordinarily should be
  avoided, but to get a role for references to a function's
  parameters within that function, a plugin would be needed. In the
  rare case that one function's docstring refers to another
  function's parameters by names those are double-backticked as
  code spans (and where applicable the name of the referred-to
  function is single-backticked with the :func: or :meth: role).

- All sections, such as :param blah:, :note:, and :return:, now
  have a newline before any text in them. This was already often
  but far from always done, and the style was overall inconsistent.
  Of consistent approaches that are clear and easy to write, this
  is the simplest. It also seems to substantially improve
  readability, when taken together with...

- Sections are always separated by a blank line, even if they are
  very short.

- Essentially unlimited use of `~a.b.c`, where applicable, to refer
  and link to the documentation for a.b.c while showing the text
  "a" and revealing "a.b.c" on hover. I had previously somewhat
  limited my use of this tilde notation in case readers of the
  source code itself (where it is not rendered) weren't familiar
  with it, but at the cost of less consistency in when an entity
  was referred to. There remain a couple places in git.util where
  I do not do this because the explicit form `a <a.b.c>`, which is
  equivalent, lined things up better and was thus easier to read.

Those are the major differences between the approach taken here
and in gitpython-developers#1725, but not necessarily most of the changes done here
(many of which are the same kinds of revisions as done there).

Note that this commit only modifies some git/*.py files, and there
are more git/**/*.py files that remain to be revised accordingly.
This makes it easier to read along with, and compare to, the
other overloads.
@EliahKagan
Copy link
Owner Author

This didn't how a CodeQL alert for the commit where it was shown in gitpython-developers#1850.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
1 participant