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

Python3: use open() instead of file() #2370

Merged
merged 3 commits into from May 18, 2016

Conversation

Projects
None yet
4 participants
@nsoranzo
Copy link
Member

commented May 17, 2016

Also:

  • finish fixing the deprecated use of comma in except clause
  • fixed more E203 flake8 errors.

xref. #1715

@bgruening

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented May 18, 2016

Nice work @nsoranzo!

@dannon dannon merged commit 978fec0 into galaxyproject:dev May 18, 2016

4 checks passed

api test Build finished. 213 tests run, 0 skipped, 0 failed.
Details
continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details
framework test Build finished. 105 tests run, 0 skipped, 0 failed.
Details
toolshed test Build finished. 581 tests run, 0 skipped, 0 failed.
Details
@carlfeberhard

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented May 18, 2016

@nsoranzo , all: Please stop fixing the 'error' E203? We agreed it was an exception: https://github.com/galaxyproject/galaxy/blob/dev/setup.cfg#L8 Thanks!

@dannon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented May 18, 2016

@carlfeberhard If my memory serves, that exception was primarily for dictionary definitions like this:

z = { 'a':         1,  
      'foo':       2,  
      'zipzapbam': 3 }

And I'm totally fine with that, and avoided changing any, as it's arguable they're more readable. That said, consistently using commas like the change at 384be8c#diff-3d1133c72b8beb0cc65d3e0fe244d36aL40 is a good thing, right?

@nsoranzo

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented May 18, 2016

@carlfeberhard Following on what @dannon said, I tried to fix only places where dictionary definitions were not aligned anyway.

@carlfeberhard

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented May 18, 2016

I'm talking about exactly those types of dictionary changes in this PR: https://github.com/galaxyproject/galaxy/pull/2370/files#diff-546462838b1910ac1552210ce65bf065L122

C'mon, guys: we supposedly agreed on this stuff. Let's spend our energy on testing and docs and not go back and forth on this stuff.

@dannon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented May 18, 2016

@nsoranzo Yeah, it looks like you did change some of those towards the bottom of your PR. Did you do this in an automated way?

@carlfeberhard So you're good with the other changes, right? I just want to make sure our understanding is clear that the only E203 exception we made was for dictionary definitions, when they're aligned so as to be more readable. We can certainly fix/revert the handful of lines that were erroneously 'fixed' here. Did I miss any in #2364? I was pretty sure all the changes there were solid improvements.

@nsoranzo

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented May 18, 2016

@dannon Automatically, but reviewed them. In that particular case, it's a dict with 3 entries followed by commented entries which were not aligned, not sure it's worth debating about it further.

@carlfeberhard

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented May 18, 2016

@nsoranzo please don't be dismissive. I haven't '-1'd this PR but I'm within my right to do so. If you don't want to abide by an agreed upon style guide but instead apply your own standards of when/if rules and agreements apply you've ceased to be collaborative.

If it's not worth debating it further you could have saved everyone even more time and not made the changes in the first place.

@dannon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented May 18, 2016

Yeah, it's definitely worth talking about and getting everyone on the same page. It's not a useful standard if we're not agreed on how to follow it.

@carlfeberhard Can you address my questions above? I'm still happy to PR up a reversion of those dict formatting changes.

@carlfeberhard

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented May 18, 2016

I've said it before: Python 3 compat -> awesome!

I'm only good with the other changes because the group has voted for us to use an automated script to constrain our python style. I don't personally agree with that. To me, these aren't 'errors' - they're typos that should be 'fixed' when refactoring where you find them - not some script and certainly not some year long project priority.

But the group wants to do it - so I'm fine if you want to spend time to do it. Just make sure you're abiding by the agreed upon styles (which you did, @dannon) and try to work with others.

@dannon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented May 18, 2016

Hrmm. Yeah, I get fixing these when you run into them -- this all started when I was fixing a bug in #2362 and made this https://github.com/galaxyproject/galaxy/pull/2362/files#diff-df0bd5282b0a1d687b1a51a6253027f9R250 small change. That said, I actually really prefer seeing this type of work separately from substantive changes -- it makes it way easier for me to review tweaks to logic without having to dig through hundreds of lines of junk in the diffs. To each their own, though, on that one.

Anyway, to be clear for everyone moving forward -- E203 should not drive changes to dictionary formatting when the previous author has intentionally tried to structure columns for readability.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.