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

rough flake8 integration #212

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Mar 10, 2015
Merged

Conversation

collinanderson
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@@ -7,5 +7,6 @@ alabaster>=0.6.0
nose==1.3.0
spec>=0.11.1
mock==1.0.1
flake8
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Can you stick the latest stable release number in here as an ==? thanks!

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

done

@bitprophet
Copy link
Member

Thanks for poking at this! See line comments :)

@bitprophet
Copy link
Member

Also linking to #157 which this kinda supersedes.

@bitprophet
Copy link
Member

Thanks for making those updates. Annoyingly, I didn't notice last time that there's apparently a rule for double spaces before line comments (e.g. foo = blah # lol) - this is another spot where I personally diverge from core PEP8. Sorry I didn't catch that earlier :(

Went and checked on all the stuff ignored/not ignored to see if I agree (I'd like to choose a single set of these rule ignores so I can apply them eventually to all of my projects :))...results:

  • As above, I'm thinking we ignore E261 (two spaces before line comments).
  • Why ignore F401 (module imported but unused)? When I run w/ it un-ignored I see 90% correct catches of unused imports (boy I should've put linting in before! thanks again for the PR...), with a handful of __init__.py convenience imports that we can presumably explicitly ignore.
  • I don't see W503 in pep8's docs, what's it do?
  • E711 and E712 - offhand I'd agree with those errors if they popped up. If I remove those from a copy of your branch, I see a handful of alerts and they all seem legit (where we use == instead of the arguably more correct is).
  • F811 and F821 also sound like rules I'd agree with if they alerted, and as above, if I remove them it does find some things I would consider errors :)

@collinanderson
Copy link
Contributor Author

Don't worry, I added two space comments in the second change which is why you didn't catch it the first time. :)

I originally ignored all of the import cleanup just to keep the diff small enough. Here it is with all of the import cleanup.

@bitprophet bitprophet merged commit 83c633e into pyinvoke:master Mar 10, 2015
bitprophet added a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 10, 2015
@bitprophet
Copy link
Member

Looks good, thanks again! I might tweak that ignores list more in future but this is a great start.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants