Adopt ruff formatter instead of black #1051
Conversation
Codecov Report
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1051 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 93.26% 89.59% -3.67%
==========================================
Files 104 106 +2
Lines 15814 16796 +982
Branches 35 35
==========================================
+ Hits 14749 15049 +300
- Misses 1058 1740 +682
Partials 7 7 see 8 files with indirect coverage changes Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.
|
CodSpeed Performance ReportMerging #1051 will improve performances by 14.35%Comparing Summary
Benchmarks breakdown
|
Makefile
Outdated
| $(black) | ||
| $(ruff) --fix --exit-zero | ||
| ruff format --check --diff $(sources) | ||
| cargo fmt | ||
|
|
||
| .PHONY: lint-python | ||
| lint-python: | ||
| $(ruff) | ||
| $(black) --check --diff | ||
| ruff --fix --exit-zero $(sources) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we'll want to do something like we did with pydantic here:
https://github.com/pydantic/pydantic/blob/9868b456e4352558aa01217a6688b30554c6f290/Makefile#L26-L34
With a ruff --fix and ruff format call in the format step and ruff and ruff format check in the lint step 👍
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Correct, lint should change anything.
Surely ruff format should imply ruff --fix?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we should use both based on this: https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/formatter/#conflicting-lint-rules
There was a problem hiding this comment.
My thinking is there was some redundancy in the last PR.
As an example, a linter and formatter command under the linting step:
.PHONY: lint ## Lint python source files
lint: .pdm
pdm run ruff $(sources)
pdm run ruff format --check $(sources)
Nonetheless happy to make the modifications per your recommendation.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, I think we're really using lint like a check step and the format step like a fix step. I'm making some changes to pytest-examples right now that should iron out the details of which things we want to use where.
I'll get back to you on Monday with an answer about which we want to use here 👍
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let's stick with the same pattern we're using in pydantic for now 👍
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Done, let me know if anything else.
Change Summary
[".github/workflows/ci.yml","Makefile", "pyproject.toml", "tests/requirements-linting.txt"]
Related issue number
closes #1048
Checklist
pydantic-core(except for expected changes)