[chirp_devel] Fwd: [CHIRP - Feature #159] (In Progress) Get pylint happy with chirp

[Dan Smith]

I'd like to get a feeling from others about how valuable they think it
is to have a bunch of change to get pylint happy. Personally, I
abandoned this work a while ago being ever more frustrated with pylint
in a lot of areas. Having used it (or specifically not used it) in other
large projects since, I think it's value is extremely limited. For
example, it will likely be hopelessly confused by bitwise and any code
that uses it. I've seen it employed most usefully in a situation where
it is simply used against a specific patch to try to gauge whether it
"makes things worse or not".

Unless we pick things we care about specifically for a whitelist of
issues, I'd rather not see another hundred or so patches to try to
trivially appease pylint.

Thoughts?

--Dan


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	[CHIRP - Feature #159] (In Progress) Get pylint happy with chirp
Date: 	Sun, 8 Mar 2015 03:46:55 -0700
From: 	donotreply at danplanet.com



Issue #159 has been updated by Zach Welch.

  * Tracker changed from Bug to Feature
  * Status changed from New to In Progress
  * Assignee changed from Dan Smith to Zach Welch
  * Target version set to 0.5.0
  * % Done changed from 20 to 0
  * Chirp Version changed from 0.3.0 to daily

I have a couple of patches in the works to add pylint to the cpep8
script (see #2355 <http://chirp.danplanet.com/issues/2355>). This allows
the source code to be automatically scanned as part of run_all_tests.sh.
It includes a new blacklist to exclude files that are not yet compliant.

Unfortunately, not a single file was pylint compliant when I started
looking at this task. I was able to get a couple of files fixed up
without too much pain, but most of the modules have brutally long lists
of issues (far beyond what was flagged/fixed by pep8).

On the bright side, pylint is clearly superior to pep8 in terms of
completeness. For example, it already helped me find a latent error in
the new logger module. I think that we will be better off with this kind
of checking in place.

That said, there are points of contention between the pep8 tool and
pylint, so I have disabled a couple of checks that pep8 already says we
pass (e.g. line continuation alignment, multiple spaces after commas).
There are likely additional checks that need to be disabled.

------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Feature #159: Get pylint happy with chirp
  <http://chirp.danplanet.com/issues/159#change-6577>

  * Author: Dan Smith
  * Status: In Progress
  * Priority: Normal
  * Assignee: Zach Welch
  * Category:
  * Target version: 0.5.0
  * Chirp Version: daily
  * Model affected: (All models)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

You have received this notification because you have either subscribed
to it, or are involved in it.
To change your notification preferences, please click here:
http://chirp.danplanet.com/my/account




-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://intrepid.danplanet.com/pipermail/chirp_devel/attachments/20150308/be4a9d92/attachment-0001.bin