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

Lint against python 3.9 only #2586

Merged
merged 5 commits into from Aug 5, 2021
Merged

Lint against python 3.9 only #2586

merged 5 commits into from Aug 5, 2021

Conversation

freddyaboulton
Copy link
Contributor

@freddyaboulton freddyaboulton commented Aug 4, 2021

Pull Request Description

According to a maintainer of black, we should lint against the latest version of python we support, which is 3.9 (comment). I also removed the 3.7, 3.8 elements from the lint matrix because the version of python that black checks against is determined by the values of the -t parameter not the version of the python runtime.

The main difference in lint now is just putting a comma after **kwargs hehe


After creating the pull request: in order to pass the release_notes_updated check you will need to update the "Future Release" section of docs/source/release_notes.rst to include this pull request by adding :pr:123.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Aug 4, 2021

Codecov Report

Merging #2586 (6f220c1) into main (f631056) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@          Coverage Diff          @@
##            main   #2586   +/-   ##
=====================================
  Coverage   99.9%   99.9%           
=====================================
  Files        295     295           
  Lines      27055   27055           
=====================================
  Hits       27012   27012           
  Misses        43      43           
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
...ents/estimators/classifiers/catboost_classifier.py 100.0% <ø> (ø)
...estimators/classifiers/decision_tree_classifier.py 100.0% <ø> (ø)
...ts/estimators/classifiers/elasticnet_classifier.py 100.0% <ø> (ø)
...components/estimators/classifiers/et_classifier.py 100.0% <ø> (ø)
...ts/estimators/classifiers/kneighbors_classifier.py 100.0% <ø> (ø)
...ents/estimators/classifiers/lightgbm_classifier.py 100.0% <ø> (ø)
...tors/classifiers/logistic_regression_classifier.py 100.0% <ø> (ø)
...omponents/estimators/classifiers/svm_classifier.py 100.0% <ø> (ø)
...nents/estimators/classifiers/xgboost_classifier.py 100.0% <ø> (ø)
...valml/pipelines/components/estimators/estimator.py 100.0% <ø> (ø)
... and 13 more

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update f631056...6f220c1. Read the comment docs.

Copy link
Contributor

@jeremyliweishih jeremyliweishih left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nice!

Copy link
Contributor

@bchen1116 bchen1116 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM!

@chukarsten chukarsten merged commit ecad831 into main Aug 5, 2021
@chukarsten chukarsten mentioned this pull request Aug 12, 2021
@freddyaboulton freddyaboulton deleted the 2527-redundant-lint-checks branch May 13, 2022 14:49
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants