-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.1k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add rule PLR5601 #10103
Add rule PLR5601 #10103
Conversation
|
code | total | + violation | - violation | + fix | - fix |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
PLR0902 | 802 | 0 | 802 | 0 | 0 |
PLR5601 | 161 | 161 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Formatter (stable)
ℹ️ ecosystem check encountered format errors. (no format changes; 1 project error)
openai/openai-cookbook (error)
warning: Detected debug build without --no-cache.
error: Failed to read examples/How_to_handle_rate_limits.ipynb: Expected a Jupyter Notebook, which must be internally stored as JSON, but this file isn't valid JSON: trailing comma at line 47 column 4
Formatter (preview)
ℹ️ ecosystem check encountered format errors. (no format changes; 1 project error)
openai/openai-cookbook (error)
ruff format --preview
warning: Detected debug build without --no-cache.
error: Failed to read examples/How_to_handle_rate_limits.ipynb: Expected a Jupyter Notebook, which must be internally stored as JSON, but this file isn't valid JSON: trailing comma at line 47 column 4
84ac1eb
to
199379b
Compare
199379b
to
1639ce7
Compare
/// | ||
/// if old_conf: | ||
/// extracted(old_conf, new_conf, machine) | ||
/// elif new_conf: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The original pylint docs mention an explicit else as alternative resolution. We should also provide that option I believe.
CodSpeed Performance ReportMerging #10103 will not alter performanceComparing Summary
|
fbd8979
to
a96a567
Compare
a96a567
to
5819d6b
Compare
Thank you, @tibor-reiss, for implementing this rule, and I am sorry that it took us so long to get back to you. We're currently revising our rule acceptance criteria as part of the work we do around #1774, and I'm sorry to inform you that we can't accept this rule for now (we can reconsider once #1774 is completed). There are two reasons for it:
Thank you again for working on the Rule and sorry that I can't give you a more positive feedback |
Add rule confusing-consecutive-elif (PLR5601)
See #970 for rules
Test plan:
cargo test