Skip to content

378b ruff config update dbodor #397

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Aug 2, 2024
Merged

378b ruff config update dbodor #397

merged 6 commits into from
Aug 2, 2024

Conversation

DaniBodor
Copy link
Collaborator

@DaniBodor DaniBodor commented Jul 12, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Additional updates to ruff settings on top of #384.

Extra changes:

  • also perform ruff formatting check in githook and linting workflow
  • removed explicit excluded file types
    • and will be read from ruff defaults instead
  • output format is defaulted to "concise"
    • this used to be the default, but it changed to "full" as per ruff 0.5 and it's very lengthy.
  • use ruff docstring convention rather than explicitly setting which docstring rules to ignore
  • Turned on (almost) all linting rules, instead of hand-picking the main ones.
    • This may be slightly contentious, but I find that in a new project it's quite manageable (if applied to an existing project, it may be overwhelming)
    • Some rules are suppressed, which are the ones I have found to be over the top. I realize that this decision is somewhat arbitrary, but still think it works.
  • Updated actions/checkout and actions/setup-python to their newest versions
    • this is a bit of scope creep...

@sjvrijn sjvrijn mentioned this pull request Jul 29, 2024
Merged
2 tasks
Base automatically changed from 378-ruff-config-update to main July 30, 2024 10:15
@egpbos
Copy link
Member

egpbos commented Jul 30, 2024

#384 merged, this can now be rebased on main.

@egpbos
Copy link
Member

egpbos commented Jul 30, 2024

Damn, sorry for the sloppy review, but there is another ruff issue we missed in #384: in the build action, there is a linting workflow that also calls ruff .. That should become ruff check .. Can someone perhaps add a fix for that in this PR?

DaniBodor added 5 commits July 30, 2024 14:35
@DaniBodor @sjvrijn
perform ruff format check (in addition to linting) in workflow and in…
2f33fb9 
… pre-commit hook

also explicitly call `ruff check` rather than deprecated `ruff .`
@DaniBodor @sjvrijn
update deprecated format of ruff settings in pyproject.toml
1af168e
@DaniBodor @sjvrijn
use ruff docstring convention
ab81417 
more consistent than explicitly ignoring certain rules
@DaniBodor @sjvrijn
more aggressive linting checks
0c66450
@DaniBodor @sjvrijn
update checkout and setup-python versions
1360ccf 
for both current project as well as in cookiecutter
@sjvrijn sjvrijn force-pushed the 378b-ruff-config-update-dbodor branch from 8e47740 to 1360ccf Compare July 30, 2024 12:43
@sjvrijn
Copy link
Contributor

sjvrijn commented Jul 30, 2024

Damn, sorry for the sloppy review, but there is another ruff issue we missed in #384: in the build action, there is a linting workflow that also calls ruff .. That should become ruff check .. Can someone perhaps add a fix for that in this PR?

@egpbos As far as I can tell, that's already in this PR, see build.yml

@sjvrijn
Copy link
Contributor

sjvrijn commented Jul 30, 2024

@egpbos Issue was in the test, not the build.yml itself.
Test are passing now. I've made the choice to ignore the newly raised issues in tests and docs/conf.py, but to add type hints to the sample package file rather than ignoring the type annotation issues all together. I think that making type checking optional and/or deferring to another tool like mypy should be a separate issue

sjvrijn
sjvrijn approved these changes Jul 30, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@sjvrijn sjvrijn left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@DaniBodor
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@egpbos , can this be merged now?

@egpbos
Copy link
Member

egpbos commented Jul 31, 2024

Reviewer approved, so go for it :)

@DaniBodor DaniBodor merged commit a50915a into main Aug 2, 2024
16 checks passed
@DaniBodor DaniBodor deleted the 378b-ruff-config-update-dbodor branch August 2, 2024 10:03
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@sjvrijn sjvrijn sjvrijn approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@DaniBodor @egpbos @sjvrijn