Open Stack

I think it's 'ok' to try to tidy up the modules a bit, but I would put the
expectation
that this is not a priority for reviewers.
And honestly, I don't think we should ever lint on tests this kind of
styling.

What I believe is something that you could change is pause a bit the
refactoring,
the review queue has got somewhat flooded by these changes this last week.

Regards

2016-03-24 14:46 GMT+01:00 Yolanda Robla Mota <yolanda.robla-mota at hpe.com>:

> I did an effort to review that, and some of the patches are merged.
> Although it's low priority, in general these patches have improved
> readability, and in some of the cases, have grouped the parameters in a
> more logical way. I always tend to space the parameters myself, and keep
> them ordered in a logical way because they are easier to maintain later, so
> I agreed with that patch, even if that was not reflecting style guides. And
> I also appreciate the high effort that Andrey has put on it.
>
> However, I can see there is a cost to maintain the modules that way. I
> will not -1 for that, I found one case and i just suggested to keep the
> order, but I think it's not a reason for people to refactor a patch.
>
> That's my two cents.
>
> Best
> Yolanda
>
> El 24/03/16 a las 14:38, Jeremy Stanley escribió:
>
> On 2016-03-24 13:42:58 +0300 (+0300), Andrey Nikitin wrote:
>>
>>> By this message I want to start a discussion about using of the
>>> Puppet style guide [0] in the 'openstack-infra/puppet-*' projects.
>>> As you can see, I've created a lot of change-requests to the
>>> repositories some days ago. I started this work, because I saw,
>>> that those manifests have different styles of the code, therefore
>>> I wanted to refactor and make much better them. For example, some
>>> of them have unsorted and unstructured lists of variables, some of
>>> them have no docstrings in the body with description of used
>>> variables and so on. I suppose, that we can unify those manifests
>>> by following the puppet style guide, but opinions are divided.
>>>
>> I don't think opinions are especially divided about rules mandated
>> by the style guide, so much as other changes you were introducing
>> not mandated by the style guide (alphabetizing class parameters,
>> aligning = assignment operators, et cetera).
>>
>> My point of view is following: if we implement the style guide on
>>> puppet manifests, we will have unified and structured manifests
>>> with documentation for all classes. We can use it without
>>> alphabetically sorting of variables, of course.
>>>
>>> So, my questions to you are:
>>> 1. Should we follow the style guide or not?
>>> 2. What the recommendation we could implement on Openstack Infra
>>> manifests?
>>>
>> We've already stated in the past that for any modules besides
>> openstack_project (system-config), i.e. those we're publishing to
>> Puppetforge, we would follow rules mandated by the Puppet Style
>> Guide. I think things like making sure we declare required
>> parameters before optional ones, use docstrings for clarity, and so
>> on are fine. Just be aware that changes which refactor otherwise
>> syntactically and logically correct code will be low priority for
>> most of our reviewers and will likely have to be rebased many times
>> if they touch a lot of lines in a given file.
>>
>
> --
> Yolanda Robla Mota
> Cloud Automation and Distribution Engineer
> +34 605641639
> yolanda.robla-mota at hpe.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-Infra mailing list
> OpenStack-Infra at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-infra/attachments/20160324/0e901448/attachment.html>