Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Enable usage of custom pylintrc file for message documentation tests #6131

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Apr 2, 2022
Merged

Enable usage of custom pylintrc file for message documentation tests #6131

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from 2 commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
173c5d3
Enable usage of custom pylintrc file for message documentation tests,…
DudeNr33 Apr 2, 2022
92fea5c
Fix typo
DudeNr33 Apr 2, 2022
e6023e2
Add alternative for good code
DudeNr33 Apr 2, 2022
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
6 changes: 6 additions & 0 deletions doc/data/messages/c/confusing-consecutive-elif/bad.py
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
def myfunc(shall_continue: bool, shall_exit: bool):
if shall_continue:
if input("Are you sure?") == "y":
print("Moving on.")
elif shall_exit: # [confusing-consecutive-elif]
print("Exiting.")
2 changes: 2 additions & 0 deletions doc/data/messages/c/confusing-consecutive-elif/details.rst
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
Following an indented ``if`` block directly with an ``elif`` of lower indentation can lead to confusion whether the unindent is deliberate or accidental.
Adding an explicit ``else`` in the indented ``if`` statement, even if it only contains a ``pass`` statement, can help clarify the code.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
Adding an explicit ``else`` in the indented ``if`` statement, even if it only contains a ``pass`` statement, can help clarify the code.
Creating a function for the nested conditional, or adding an explicit ``else`` in the indented ``if`` statement, even if it only contains a ``pass`` statement, can help clarify the code.

8 changes: 8 additions & 0 deletions doc/data/messages/c/confusing-consecutive-elif/good.py
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
def myfunc(shall_continue: bool, shall_exit: bool):
if shall_continue:
if input("Are you sure?") == "y":
print("Moving on.")
else:
pass
elif shall_exit:
print("Exiting.")
DanielNoord marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
2 changes: 2 additions & 0 deletions doc/data/messages/c/confusing-consecutive-elif/pylintrc
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
[MASTER]
load-plugins=pylint.extensions.confusing_elif
10 changes: 8 additions & 2 deletions doc/test_messages_documentation.py
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@
from collections import Counter
from pathlib import Path
from typing import Counter as CounterType
from typing import List, TextIO, Tuple
from typing import List, Optional, TextIO, Tuple

import pytest

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -53,7 +53,13 @@ def __init__(self, test_file: Tuple[str, Path]) -> None:
self._linter.config.persistent = 0
checkers.initialize(self._linter)

config_file = next(config.find_default_config_files(), None)
# Check if this message has a custom configuration file (e.g. for enabling optional checkers).
# If not, use the default configuration.
config_file: Optional[Path]
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@DanielNoord I think we talked about this already before but what do you think about using FunctionalTestFile instead here ? At some point we will encounter the same issue than for functional tests (i.e. handling min_version, max_version, some options...). We could do test_file.option_file instead of recreating the logic a little differently.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That was actually my initial approach, but the problem is that FunctionalTestFile assumes the config file to have the same name as the .py file.
There is quite a good portion of code duplication also in the LintModuleTest class here.

Besides the different folder structure, the tight coupling between the "original" LintModuleTest and test_functional.py is another problem.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah, I advise against trying to use LintModuleTest here. The idea is similar but because of the different folder structures it doesn't really work.

It's similar to your Duck vs. PlasticDuck example @Pierre-Sassoulas 😄

DanielNoord marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
if (test_file[1].parent / "pylintrc").exists():
config_file = test_file[1].parent / "pylintrc"
else:
config_file = next(config.find_default_config_files(), None)

_config_initialization(
self._linter,
Expand Down