-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.1k
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
Merge maintenance 2.15.x in main #7426
Merge maintenance 2.15.x in main #7426
Conversation
Co-authored-by: orSolocate <38433858+orSolocate@users.noreply.github.com>
…l is assigned to a class attribute inside the class where the function is defined. (pylint-dev#7395) Closes pylint-dev#6592
Previously pylint would lint a file passed on stdin even if the user meant to ignore the file. This commit fixes that issue. Co-authored-by: Daniël van Noord <13665637+DanielNoord@users.noreply.github.com>
… annotations (pylint-dev#7400) Don't emit 'unused-variable' or 'unused-import' on names in string literal type annotations (pylint-dev#3299) Don't treat strings inside typing.Literal as names
* Fix and refactors for ``docparams`` extension The ``re_only_desc`` regex did not match for white and characters after ``\n``, so some description-only lines weren't getting matched. In addition, lookaheads were added to ``re_param_line`` (i.e. make sure the type group is not followed by a new line (``\n``)). Lastly, named groups (ala Perl regular expressions) were added for slightly improved clarity. Co-authored-by: Hendry, Adam <adam.grant.hendry@gmail.com>
This also upgrade to astroid 2.12.8.
What do you mean? Are some fragments still there? Isn't that what we want for the |
Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 3003583687
💛 - Coveralls |
Duh, you're right I forgot that. |
Interesting. I don't think we should repeat a bug fragment from X.Y.Z on the X.Y+1 changelog or the X+1 changelog. If it was fixed in 4.10.1, it's not newsworthy in 4.11. |
Did not manage to find the issue with the discussion (Even if I searched quite extensively), but if I remember correctly @DudeNr33 explained that it was intended to be like this a little prior to the discussion above in another issue and I forgot about it in this MR which is why the discussion is so short here. Would you mind sharing your view on the matter in #9302 Andreas ? |
There's an issue in the fragment that are not removed after the merge that I added in #7362. Hopefully we can delete all false positives and bug fixes fragments.