biocommons / biocommons.example

Template for new biocommons packages, and source of configuration for periodic updates to derived packages
1 stars 1 forks source link

chore: Add ruff dependency and configuration #36

Closed ecalifornica closed 1 month ago

ecalifornica commented 8 months ago

edited description by @jsstevenson:

close #3

Specific rule groupings selected (note that many specific rules also include auto-fixability -- so while they're nitpicky, they're also self-executing):

codecov[bot] commented 8 months ago

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:

Project coverage is 100.00%. Comparing base (9aa8d98) to head (5078419). Report is 31 commits behind head on main.

:exclamation: Current head 5078419 differs from pull request most recent head cd9e9e6

Please upload reports for the commit cd9e9e6 to get more accurate results.

Additional details and impacted files ```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## main #36 +/- ## ========================================= Coverage 100.00% 100.00% ========================================= Files 2 2 Lines 18 18 ========================================= Hits 18 18 ```

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

github-actions[bot] commented 7 months ago

This PR is stale because it has been open 30 days with no activity. Remove stale label or comment or this will be closed in 7 days.

github-actions[bot] commented 7 months ago

This PR was closed because it has been stalled for 7 days with no activity.

reece commented 4 months ago

This issue was closed by stalebot. It has been reopened to give more time for community review. See biocommons coding guidelines for stale issue and pull request policies. This resurrection is expected to be a onos.environ["GITHUB_TOKEN"]e-time event.

github-actions[bot] commented 3 months ago

This PR is stale because it has been open 30 days with no activity. Remove stale label or comment or this will be closed in 7 days.

jsstevenson commented 3 months ago

I'd add one thought here, in addition to my comment in #3 : Ruff development moves very quickly, and new rules are opted-in by default, which can cause headaches in CI (eg an aesthetic change like touching up the docs can fail because new code checks have been introduced). For this reason, we pin an exact Ruff version and have a policy of revisiting it about every 6 months.

github-actions[bot] commented 2 months ago

This PR is stale because it has been open 30 days with no activity. Remove stale label or comment or this will be closed in 7 days.

github-actions[bot] commented 2 months ago

This PR was closed because it has been stalled for 7 days with no activity.

jsstevenson commented 1 month ago

There's some room for discussion about particular Ruff rules/configs. Experimentally, I think PTH (here) will take the most work to implement, although I think it's worth it in the long run.

Note: I'm not totally sure how to handle testing of the boilerplate code contained here -- I noqa'd it for now?

jsstevenson commented 1 month ago

Other notes: I've left off two linting groups, flake8-annotations and flake8-pydocstyle because I think they'd be a big lift to achieve compliance with. Worth eventually implementing IMO.

korikuzma commented 1 month ago

@biocommons/maintainers did anyone else want to review this before it gets merged in?