Lint drift detection part

[garawalid]

Part of #219

[smastelini]

Hi @garawalid. Thank you for keeping the linting efforts! I left a small comment that might address the cause why the tests are failing.

[garawalid]

@smastelini thanks for the review! I need also to fix some regression in the lint of src/skmultiflow/data

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #262 into master will increase coverage by 0.02%.
The diff coverage is 97.56%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #262      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   88.39%   88.42%   +0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         185      185              
  Lines       13566    13571       +5     
==========================================
+ Hits        11992    12000       +8     
+ Misses       1574     1571       -3     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...skmultiflow/drift_detection/base_drift_detector.py	86.95% <ø> (ø)
src/skmultiflow/drift_detection/page_hinkley.py	100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/skmultiflow/drift_detection/hddm_w.py	94.73% <90.00%> (+0.05%)	⬆️
src/skmultiflow/data/time_manager.py	89.79% <100.00%> (ø)
src/skmultiflow/drift_detection/adwin.py	92.59% <100.00%> (ø)
src/skmultiflow/drift_detection/ddm.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/skmultiflow/drift_detection/eddm.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/skmultiflow/drift_detection/hddm_a.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/skmultiflow/drift_detection/kswin.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
... and 1 more

[garawalid]

Something wrong with flake8 and src/skmultiflow/data. In fact, the pipeline passes in the last commit in the master (Also on my local machine). And I didn't change it here.

[garawalid]

In fact, there is a bug in flake8 (pycodestyle) with W605 and W503. I reported it here PyCQA/pycodestyle#949. I'll disable both rules for instance!

[garawalid]

It was a mistake in the tox.ini file and I fixed it! This PR is ready for review.

[smastelini]

Thank you for the hard work @garawalid. I'll proceed to review the PR.

[smastelini]

Thank you again @garawalid for the linting efforts. I finished a first pass through the changes and let some comments and questions. It's looking pretty good so far!

[garawalid]

Thanks @smastelini for the review. I think your tox.ini uses ignore instead of extend-ignore.
The W503 is disabled by default. See the full list here and here.

[smastelini]

Thanks @smastelini for the review. I think your tox.ini uses ignore instead of extend-ignore.
The W503 is disabled by default. See the full list here and here.

Thanks for the explanation and for pointing me out to these guidelines, @garawalid. In fact, I found these W503 violations visually :-)

Although W503 is ignored by default, (and only for readability and aesthetic purposes) I personally would prefer to enforce this rule. But it is worth discussing further. Any thoughts on that matter, @jacobmontiel?

[garawalid]

@smastelini
The W503 will be an anti-pattern, that's why they introduced the W504 (the opposite).

Note: Despite being in the anti-pattern section, this will soon be considered the best practice.

I ve been reading some comments about W503 & W504. And it sounds that the community didn't reach a final agreement yet.
I'll vote to disable them both (the default configuration of flake8).
Correct style for line breaks when chaining methods in Python

[smastelini]

Hi @garawalid, you convinced me hahaha.

I would say, let's go for W504 (even if we do not enforce it in our checks). What do you think @jacobmontiel?

[garawalid]

@smastelini sorry for the late response, I missed some comments.
Could you please take another look whenever you have some free time?

[smastelini]

Hi @garawalid, thanks for the changes. I left some additional comments and resolved some of the pending items that were already solved.

[smastelini]

Thanks Walid for your linting efforts! This PR is now ready to be merged.

[garawalid]

Thanks @smastelini for your time and the review!