tox -e pep8
ssbarnea at redhat.com
Sat Dec 5 07:39:23 UTC 2020
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 at 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the openstack-discuss