[Numpy-discussion] PEP8

[Blake Griffith]

I think a good solution would to use add a git_hooks directory with a
pre-commit git hook along with an git hook installation script. And a note
should be added to DEV_README.txt suggesting installing the git hooks for
pep8 compatibility. I personally use this as a pre-commit

#!/bin/sh

FILES=$(git diff --cached --name-status | grep -v ^D | awk '$1 $2 { print
$2}' | grep -e .py$)
if [ -n "$FILES" ]; then
pep8 -r $FILES
fi

which is from here: https://gist.github.com/lentil/810399#comment-303703


On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Nathaniel Smith <njs at pobox.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Charles R Harris
> <charlesr.harris at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 8:12 AM, Richard Hattersley <
> rhattersley at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> > Something we have done in matplotlib is that we have made PEP8 a part
> of
> >> > the tests.
> >>
> >> In Iris and Cartopy we've also done this and it works well. While we
> >> transition we have an exclusion list (which is gradually getting
> shorter).
> >> We've had mixed experiences with automatic reformatting, so prefer to
> keep
> >> the human in the loop.
> >>
> >
> > I agree with keeping a human in the loop, the script would be intended to
> > get things into the right neighborhood, the submitter would have to
> review
> > the changes after. If the script isn't too strict there will be than one
> way
> > to do some things and those bits would rely on the good taste of the
> coder.
>
> So if I understand right, the goal is to have some script that
> developers can run before (or after) submitting a PR, like
>   tools/autopep8-my-changes numpy/
> that will fix up their changes, but leave the rest of numpy alone?
>
> And the proposed mechanism is to come up with a combination of changes
> to the numpy source and an autopep8 configuration such that
>   autopep8 --our-config numpy/
> becomes a no-op, and then we can use this as an implementation of
> tools/autopep8-my-changes?
>
> If that's right then my feeling is that the goal seems worthwhile but
> the approach seems difficult and unlikely to survive for long. As soon
> as someone overrides autopep8 once, we either have to disable the rule
> for the whole project or keep overriding it manually forever. You're
> already suggesting taking out the spaces-around-arithmetic rule, which
> strikes me as one of the most useful -- sure, it gets things wrongs
> sometimes, but I feel like we're constantly reviewing PRs where
> all*the*(arithmetic+is)-written**like*this.
>
> Maybe a better approach would be to spend that time hacking up some
> script that uses git and autopep8 together to run autopep8 over all
> and only those lines which the current branch has actually touched?
> It's pretty easy to parse 'git diff' output to get a list of all line
> numbers which have been modified, and then we could run autopep8 over
> the modified files and pull out only those changes which touch those
> lines.
>
> -n
>
> P.S.: definitely [:, :, 2]
> _______________________________________________
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> NumPy-Discussion at scipy.org
> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20130909/e379b36e/attachment.html>