feat: running black and isort over codebase #4
Conversation
|
So before I go and resolve conflicts - do you accept this direction or not? I had a few changes piling up waiting for this. I think it makes code collab much easier if we grab a set of linters early and stick with those. black, isort, pylint, ruff are pretty much standard these days. Once we get through that, we can get rid of the prints and shape some more or less stable interface for the core. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hey @oriordan, thanks for the contribution. I've reviewed and accepted the changes.
Moving forward, I'm considering updating the linting hook to:
- Implement a matrix strategy for pinning specific Python versions.
- Cache the pre-commit environment to enhance performance.
What do you think?
pyproject.toml
Outdated
| "black", | ||
| "isort", | ||
| "pylint", | ||
| "ruff", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Isn't ruff superfluous because of already using pylint and the others? ruff has also issued to handle f-strings in Python 3.12 incorrectly.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Gitlab is trolling me, I have not seen your comment 5 days ago and I explicitly checked. Sorry for that.
Somewhat yes, I personally believe ruff is the future and want to keep running it along with pylint which is much more robust right now (and slow as well). I have only seen a very few marginal things caught by ruff which was not by pylint, and that was likely due to the pylint config we use. If you don't mind, keep it there, otherwise we can stick to pylint.
This commit also introduce the github workflows to run pre-commit hooks on push and pull requests.