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
Use flake8 for sanity testing #22820
Conversation
Since we're still working through cleaning up existing issues caught by |
I've added this to the TWG agenda for further discussion. |
@mattclay fair enough, it does introduce more checks than I was thinking of http://flake8.pycqa.org/en/latest/user/error-codes.html There are some tests in there that simplify existing checks (e.g. module importing '*'), but mostly I wanted to avoid catchable bugs, not make things more complicated. |
I feel like it's a bit too early for this. We still have the 5 legacy pep8 issues to resolve, and 30 current. In some cases we have some overlapping checks. My feeling is that this would be a change targeted to 2.5 at earliest. I'm all for it, I just don't want it distract us from our other already planned efforts. |
This was discussed at the March 23rd TWG meeting. The general consensus is that |
e6e557c
to
aa989cc
Compare
flake8 catches more errors than pep8, so will result in fewer bugs making the codebase Restrict use of flake8 to catching just undefined names for now, and expand later
aa989cc
to
71d98e3
Compare
I suspect that work on pylint will have similar effect, so I'll close this one. |
SUMMARY
flake8 catches more errors than pep8, so will result in fewer bugs making the codebase
Would have caught the error introduced in #20214 addressed by #22818
ISSUE TYPE
COMPONENT NAME
test/sanity
ANSIBLE VERSION
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION