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

Update configuration for version 5 of isort #24

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Jul 16, 2020
Merged

Update configuration for version 5 of isort #24

merged 4 commits into from
Jul 16, 2020

Conversation

jugmac00
Copy link
Member

  • remove deprecated configuration options
  • remove duplicate isort check via flake8
  • fix sort order of imports

modified: CHANGES.rst
modified: setup.cfg
modified: src/Products/SiteErrorLog/SiteErrorLog.py
modified: src/Products/SiteErrorLog/tests/testInitialization.py
modified: tox.ini

jugmac00 and others added 3 commits July 16, 2020 12:01
- remove deprecated configuration options
- remove duplicate isort check via flake8
- fix sort order of imports

modified:   CHANGES.rst
modified:   setup.cfg
modified:   src/Products/SiteErrorLog/SiteErrorLog.py
modified:   src/Products/SiteErrorLog/tests/testInitialization.py
modified:   tox.ini
@dataflake dataflake merged commit 1f3fa3d into master Jul 16, 2020
@dataflake dataflake deleted the fix-isort branch July 16, 2020 11:20
@@ -3,7 +3,8 @@ language: python
matrix:
include:
- python: "3.6"
env: TOXENV=flake8
env: TOXENV=lint
after_success:
- python: "2.7"
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Did this line slip in?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This was intentional.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Could you give me a hint about the reasoning?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

If you look at what after_success does it should be clear that it doesn't make sense for the linting step. The linting step produces no coverage data and coveralls will misinterpret that as "zero coverage".

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants