tox -e pep8

Sean Mooney smooney at
Wed Dec 16 17:53:47 UTC 2020

On Wed, 2020-12-16 at 17:16 +0000, Jeremy Stanley 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:
> 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.
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.

More information about the openstack-discuss mailing list