sourcery-ai[bot]
commented
2 years ago Sourcery Code Quality Report
✅ Merging this PR will increase code quality in the affected files by 0.18%.
| Quality metrics | Before | After | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Complexity | 2.19 ⭐ | 2.03 ⭐ | -0.16 👍 |
| Method Length | 49.68 ⭐ | 49.63 ⭐ | -0.05 👍 |
| Working memory | 12.00 😞 | 11.98 😞 | -0.02 👍 |
| Quality | 70.54% 🙂 | 70.72% 🙂 | 0.18% 👍 |
| Other metrics | Before | After | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lines | 310 | 311 | 1 |
| Changed files | Quality Before | Quality After | Quality Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| agnpy/emission_regions/blob.py | 70.54% 🙂 | 70.72% 🙂 | 0.18% 👍 |
Here are some functions in these files that still need a tune-up:
| File | Function | Complexity | Length | Working Memory | Quality | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| agnpy/emission_regions/blob.py | Blob.__init__ | 0 ⭐ | 180 😞 | 26 ⛔ | 45.27% 😞 | Try splitting into smaller methods. Extract out complex expressions |
| agnpy/emission_regions/blob.py | init_spectrum_norm_dict | 11 🙂 | 135 😞 | 14 😞 | 47.35% 😞 | Try splitting into smaller methods. Extract out complex expressions |
| agnpy/emission_regions/blob.py | Blob.__str__ | 0 ⭐ | 105 🙂 | 26 ⛔ | 53.57% 🙂 | Extract out complex expressions |
Legend and Explanation
The emojis denote the absolute quality of the code:
- ⭐ excellent
- 🙂 good
- 😞 poor
- ⛔ very poor
The 👍 and 👎 indicate whether the quality has improved or gotten worse with this pull request.
Please see our documentation here for details on how these metrics are calculated.
We are actively working on this report - lots more documentation and extra metrics to come!
Help us improve this quality report!
codecov[bot]
pawel21
cosimoNigro
Dear @pawel21,
thanks for helping me with linting and flaking our code. From a bit of reading it seems that there is some overlap between the checks that
pylintandflake8perform.From a superficial reading, it seems to me that
pylintis the more complete, so I would suggest use it as reference.As you rightly pointed out though, there are a lot of error and warning messages printed, but you can avoid some of them by specifying some settings. For example, by default, variable, attributes and method should all follow the
snake_casenotation, so there should be no upper case letters. In our case this is a bit difficult as we try to "mimic" the math notation (e.g. the magnetic field is always upper case) or, for example, there is a clear difference between a lower and upper case Lorentz factor gamma. I disabled some of this warning through a.pylintrcfile that you can find in this PR.pylintwill automatically detect and use it. After that, most of the warnings left were due to trailing whitespaces in the comments - I suggest you use some feature of your text editor to spot and remove them.To start the global linting I used
pylinton theemission_regions/blob.pymodule. After some corrections this is the output ofpylintthat I get by runningmuch more reduced with respect to initial list of warnings we were getting. I think it's a good score, the warning left are due to too long comment lines (that cannot be split because they contain math expressions or will break the itemising in sphinx. Then there are some warnings on the number of arguments and attributes of a class and where they should be initialised, but I think the last word on these should be on the developers. So I will not disable these warnings.
As a bonus we get also a decent score with
flake8. Only warning about the length of the comments are left@pawel can you continue on this branch with linting the rest of the code? I think a score around 8 is acceptable.