chore: run ruff check explicitly
#9294
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Running `ruff check <path>` is both clearer and more future-proof, since `ruff <path>` is deprecated in newer versions of Ruff.
CodSpeed Performance ReportMerging #9294 will not alter performanceComparing Summary
|
sydney-runkle
approved these changes
Apr 22, 2024
|
I've no idea what causes the seg fault in the ubuntu pypy3.10 test, it seems unrelated. @sydney-runkle what am I missing? |
|
Yeah, it shouldn't be related 😢 I've never had that check fail so many times after re-runs. Trying again now! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Change Summary
Running
ruff check <path>is both clearer and more future-proof, sinceruff <path>is deprecated in newer versions of Ruff.Related issue number
Checklist