-
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
Stabilize two flake8-pyi
rules
#12860
Conversation
|
code | total | + violation | - violation | + fix | - fix |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
PYI062 | 15 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
PYI057 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Linter (preview)
✅ ecosystem check detected no linter changes.
@@ -779,9 +779,9 @@ pub fn code_to_rule(linter: Linter, code: &str) -> Option<(RuleGroup, Rule)> { | |||
(Flake8Pyi, "055") => (RuleGroup::Stable, rules::flake8_pyi::rules::UnnecessaryTypeUnion), | |||
(Flake8Pyi, "056") => (RuleGroup::Stable, rules::flake8_pyi::rules::UnsupportedMethodCallOnAll), | |||
(Flake8Pyi, "058") => (RuleGroup::Stable, rules::flake8_pyi::rules::GeneratorReturnFromIterMethod), | |||
(Flake8Pyi, "057") => (RuleGroup::Preview, rules::flake8_pyi::rules::ByteStringUsage), | |||
(Flake8Pyi, "057") => (RuleGroup::Stable, rules::flake8_pyi::rules::ByteStringUsage), |
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.
I think this one has been around for a little less than 90 days -- it was merged on May 29 and released on May 31. But it's also a very simple and uncontroversial rule (IMO), so I'm okay with stabilising it a couple of weeks before we normally would 😄 it's not in our versioning policy that we have to wait 90 days
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.
Lol, that's correct. I only saw May and was like, that's a long time ago. I did do the proper math for the other rules.
I think the ecoystem report has gone haywire because you changed the base branch of the PR after it had been opened. Could you try rebasing it? Or maybe closing and reopening it? |
Hmm, I'm trying to reproduce the typeshed errors where the error message looks very off but without success so far |
If you can't repro them locally, it's probably another case of #11305 |
Ohh, thanks for pointing that out. I did paste that code snippet into the test and I can't reproduce locally. |
Summary
Stabilize
PYI057
andPYI62
.The rules have been added more than 90 days ago and there are no outstanding issues (searching by rule name or code).
It is a bit funny that the rules apply to both
pyi
andpy
files, considering that they are part offlake8-pyi
.They do match the behavior of the upstream rules and we can move the rules into a more appropriate group when doing the rule categorization.
Test Plan
See ecosystem check