Skip to content

Conversation

@ldoktor
Copy link
Contributor

@ldoktor ldoktor commented May 26, 2025

This PR is built on top of #151 and adds python black style fixes.

ldoktor added 5 commits May 26, 2025 10:38
The "setup.py test" is deprecated. We could either run the tests
directly by "-m unittest" or simply rely on well established runner
"pytest". Let's use the second way here.

Signed-off-by: Lukáš Doktor <[email protected]>
"setup.py develop" is deprecated, use pip instead.

Signed-off-by: Lukáš Doktor <[email protected]>
the double-curly-brackets do not require escaping and fails in black
linter.

Signed-off-by: Lukáš Doktor <[email protected]>
address all python black style issues.

Signed-off-by: Lukáš Doktor <[email protected]>
to keep the formatting correct add python black to the "make check". As
black does not cooperate with autopep on some style options let's expand
the default --disable-lint options in our inspektor and rely on black.

Signed-off-by: Lukáš Doktor <[email protected]>
@ldoktor
Copy link
Contributor Author

ldoktor commented May 26, 2025

@pevogam this should take care of black ;-)

Copy link
Contributor

@pevogam pevogam left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Really nice @ldoktor! I think this will make for a great improvement in readability before a potential release.

@ldoktor
Copy link
Contributor Author

ldoktor commented May 27, 2025

Really nice @ldoktor! I think this will make for a great improvement in readability before a potential release.

Well it's (more-less) their work. Anyway I'll have to get used to the:

   foo = (
      [
          BAR
      ])

notation which I do not enjoy...

@ldoktor ldoktor merged commit 223e1d1 into avocado-framework:main May 27, 2025
3 checks passed
@pevogam
Copy link
Contributor

pevogam commented May 27, 2025

Really nice @ldoktor! I think this will make for a great improvement in readability before a potential release.

Well it's (more-less) their work. Anyway I'll have to get used to the:

   foo = (
      [
          BAR
      ])

notation which I do not enjoy...

Actually this notation is much more flexible when it comes to renames. Just imagine you rename a function changing the number of characters it contains and as a result having to change all follow us tabulation to align it again (something which is also not that simple hard to automate). Now you will only have to change one and the actual line for a rename like this.

@ldoktor
Copy link
Contributor Author

ldoktor commented May 27, 2025

Sure, I'm not saying it's bad, it's just something I need to get used to :-)

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.

2 participants