Do we still using it? If not, what have we replaced it with? Thanks, Arkady Kanevsky, Ph.D. SP Chief Technologist & DE Dell EMC office of CTO Dell Inc. One Dell Way, MS PS2-91 Round Rock, TX 78682, USA Phone: 512 7204955
Hi Arkady, Yes the projects are using pep8, you don't need to specify in the zuul file if you have the template `openstack-python3-<release>-jobs`. In ironic for example: https://opendev.org/openstack/ironic/src/branch/master/zuul.d/project.yaml#L... The template is defined in https://opendev.org/openstack/openstack-zuul-jobs/src/branch/master/zuul.d/p... Em sáb., 5 de dez. de 2020 às 03:55, Kanevsky, Arkady < Arkady.Kanevsky@dell.com> escreveu:
Do we still using it?
If not, what have we replaced it with?
Thanks,
Arkady Kanevsky, Ph.D.
SP Chief Technologist & DE
Dell EMC office of CTO
Dell Inc. One Dell Way, MS PS2-91
Round Rock, TX 78682, USA
Phone: 512 7204955
-- *Att[]'sIury Gregory Melo Ferreira * *MSc in Computer Science at UFCG* *Part of the puppet-manager-core team in OpenStack* *Software Engineer at Red Hat Czech* *Social*: https://www.linkedin.com/in/iurygregory *E-mail: iurygregory@gmail.com <iurygregory@gmail.com>*
On 2020-12-05 02:52:06 +0000 (+0000), Kanevsky, Arkady wrote:
Do we still using it? If not, what have we replaced it with?
Most projects do still have a "pep8" tox testenv, however these days it usually invokes the flake8 utility which calls pycodestyle (the successor of the old pep8 utility) as one of multiple plugins. -- Jeremy Stanley
My impression was that the newer recommended tox environment was “linters’ and it would decouple the implementation from the process name, making easy for each project too adapt their linters based on their needs. A grep on codesearch could show how popular is each. I think that one of the reasons many projects were not converted is because job is defined by a shared template and making a bulk transition requires a lot of effort. I am wondering if we could use a trick to easy this kind of migration: make zuul job detect which environment is present and call it. Basically we can have a generic zuul linter that calls either pep8 or linters tox end. We can go even further and make it call “yarn lint” if found. On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 at 03:48 Jeremy Stanley <fungi@yuggoth.org> wrote:
On 2020-12-05 02:52:06 +0000 (+0000), Kanevsky, Arkady wrote:
Do we still using it? If not, what have we replaced it with?
Most projects do still have a "pep8" tox testenv, however these days it usually invokes the flake8 utility which calls pycodestyle (the successor of the old pep8 utility) as one of multiple plugins. -- Jeremy Stanley
-- -- /sorin
Thanks all for help. From: Sorin Sbarnea <ssbarnea@redhat.com> Sent: Saturday, December 5, 2020 1:39 AM To: Jeremy Stanley Cc: openstack-discuss@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: tox -e pep8 [EXTERNAL EMAIL] My impression was that the newer recommended tox environment was “linters’ and it would decouple the implementation from the process name, making easy for each project too adapt their linters based on their needs. A grep on codesearch could show how popular is each. I think that one of the reasons many projects were not converted is because job is defined by a shared template and making a bulk transition requires a lot of effort. I am wondering if we could use a trick to easy this kind of migration: make zuul job detect which environment is present and call it. Basically we can have a generic zuul linter that calls either pep8 or linters tox end. We can go even further and make it call “yarn lint” if found. On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 at 03:48 Jeremy Stanley <fungi@yuggoth.org<mailto:fungi@yuggoth.org>> wrote: On 2020-12-05 02:52:06 +0000 (+0000), Kanevsky, Arkady wrote:
Do we still using it? If not, what have we replaced it with?
Most projects do still have a "pep8" tox testenv, however these days it usually invokes the flake8 utility which calls pycodestyle (the successor of the old pep8 utility) as one of multiple plugins. -- Jeremy Stanley -- -- /sorin
On 12/5/20 1:39 AM, Sorin Sbarnea wrote:
My impression was that the newer recommended tox environment was “linters’ and it would decouple the implementation from the process name, making easy for each project too adapt their linters based on their needs.
A grep on codesearch could show how popular is each.
I think that one of the reasons many projects were not converted is because job is defined by a shared template and making a bulk transition requires a lot of effort.
We stopped moving to "linters" because the PTI explicitly called for a "pep8" target. Since that still appears to be the case[0] it would require a governance change to stop using pep8. At least for Python projects. 0: https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/pti/python.html
On 2020-12-16 10:53:22 -0600 (-0600), Ben Nemec wrote:
On 12/5/20 1:39 AM, Sorin Sbarnea wrote:
My impression was that the newer recommended tox environment was “linters’ and it would decouple the implementation from the process name, making easy for each project too adapt their linters based on their needs.
A grep on codesearch could show how popular is each.
I think that one of the reasons many projects were not converted is because job is defined by a shared template and making a bulk transition requires a lot of effort.
We stopped moving to "linters" because the PTI explicitly called for a "pep8" target. Since that still appears to be the case[0] it would require a governance change to stop using pep8. At least for Python projects.
0: https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/pti/python.html
A project could of course have both if they wanted, the PTI doesn't prohibit that. If tox provided a feature to alias testenv names then it would be fairly trivial to maintain, though a testenv:pep8 can still explicitly inherit each individual option from the testenv:linters section (yes it is sort of ugly). I personally have little concern for what we call it as long as we keep consistent between projects, but changing this across every project does seem like a bit of unwarranted additional work for everyone. -- Jeremy Stanley
On 2020-12-16 10:53:22 -0600 (-0600), Ben Nemec wrote:
On 12/5/20 1:39 AM, Sorin Sbarnea wrote:
My impression was that the newer recommended tox environment was “linters’ and it would decouple the implementation from the process name, making easy for each project too adapt their linters based on their needs.
A grep on codesearch could show how popular is each.
I think that one of the reasons many projects were not converted is because job is defined by a shared template and making a bulk transition requires a lot of effort.
We stopped moving to "linters" because the PTI explicitly called for a "pep8" target. Since that still appears to be the case[0] it would require a governance change to stop using pep8. At least for Python projects.
0: https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/pti/python.html
A project could of course have both if they wanted, the PTI doesn't prohibit that. If tox provided a feature to alias testenv names then it would be fairly trivial to maintain, though a testenv:pep8 can still explicitly inherit each individual option from the testenv:linters section (yes it is sort of ugly).
I personally have little concern for what we call it as long as we keep consistent between projects, but changing this across every project does seem like a bit of unwarranted additional work for everyone. tox -e pep8 and tox -e linters wont neessisarly run the same tests on all project that have both.
On Wed, 2020-12-16 at 17:16 +0000, Jeremy Stanley wrote: linters has been used in the past to run optional addtionall linteres that were not gated on. i dont recall what repo that was in or if its still the case but they are not nessisarialy aliases of each other.
On 12/16/20 11:53 AM, Sean Mooney wrote:
On 2020-12-16 10:53:22 -0600 (-0600), Ben Nemec wrote:
On 12/5/20 1:39 AM, Sorin Sbarnea wrote:
My impression was that the newer recommended tox environment was “linters’ and it would decouple the implementation from the process name, making easy for each project too adapt their linters based on their needs.
A grep on codesearch could show how popular is each.
I think that one of the reasons many projects were not converted is because job is defined by a shared template and making a bulk transition requires a lot of effort.
We stopped moving to "linters" because the PTI explicitly called for a "pep8" target. Since that still appears to be the case[0] it would require a governance change to stop using pep8. At least for Python projects.
0: https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/pti/python.html
A project could of course have both if they wanted, the PTI doesn't prohibit that. If tox provided a feature to alias testenv names then it would be fairly trivial to maintain, though a testenv:pep8 can still explicitly inherit each individual option from the testenv:linters section (yes it is sort of ugly).
I personally have little concern for what we call it as long as we keep consistent between projects, but changing this across every project does seem like a bit of unwarranted additional work for everyone. tox -e pep8 and tox -e linters wont neessisarly run the same tests on all project that have both.
On Wed, 2020-12-16 at 17:16 +0000, Jeremy Stanley wrote: linters has been used in the past to run optional addtionall linteres that were not gated on. i dont recall what repo that was in or if its still the case but they are not nessisarialy aliases of each other.
Sure, I was only intending to point out that linters is not a replacement for pep8, and possibly to head off a rash of s/pep8/linters/ tox.ini changes. ;-)
participants (6)
-
Ben Nemec
-
Iury Gregory
-
Jeremy Stanley
-
Kanevsky, Arkady
-
Sean Mooney
-
Sorin Sbarnea