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

Merge maintenance 2.15.x in main #7426

Conversation

Pierre-Sassoulas
Copy link
Member

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.

Rogdham and others added 14 commits September 6, 2022 23:33
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>
@Pierre-Sassoulas Pierre-Sassoulas added Maintenance Discussion or action around maintaining pylint or the dev workflow Skip news 🔇 This change does not require a changelog entry labels Sep 6, 2022
@DanielNoord
Copy link
Collaborator

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.

What do you mean? Are some fragments still there? Isn't that what we want for the 2.16 release?

@coveralls
Copy link

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 3003583687

  • 0 of 0 changed or added relevant lines in 0 files are covered.
  • No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
  • Overall coverage remained the same at 95.328%

Totals Coverage Status
Change from base Build 3003038064: 0.0%
Covered Lines: 17017
Relevant Lines: 17851

💛 - Coveralls

@Pierre-Sassoulas
Copy link
Member Author

What do you mean? Are some fragments still there? Isn't that what we want for the 2.16 release?

Duh, you're right I forgot that.

@jacobtylerwalls
Copy link
Member

What do you mean? Are some fragments still there? Isn't that what we want for the 2.16 release?

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.

@Pierre-Sassoulas
Copy link
Member Author

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 ?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Maintenance Discussion or action around maintaining pylint or the dev workflow Skip news 🔇 This change does not require a changelog entry
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

9 participants