Implement too-many-positional-arguments
#9842
Conversation
| """The max positional arguments default is 5.""" | ||
|
|
||
| # +1: [too-many-arguments, too-many-positional]] | ||
| def take_five_args(self, a, b, c, d, e): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I welcome input on making this more user-friendly--I was just hammering this out quickly.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #9842 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 95.79% 95.80%
=======================================
Files 174 174
Lines 18921 18932 +11
=======================================
+ Hits 18126 18137 +11
Misses 795 795
|
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
jacobtylerwalls
changed the title
too-many-positionaltoo-many-positional-arguments
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
| @@ -1 +0,0 @@ | |||
| Reserved message name, not yet implemented. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Probably need some explanation about how it's hard to remember the order of everything if there's a lot of positional and thus it's a bad API. (We can take some inspiration from what Ruff says)
| "msgid/symbol pair reserved for compatibility with ruff, " | ||
| "see https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/8946.", | ||
| "Too many positional arguments (%s/%s)", | ||
| "too-many-positional-arguments", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I also prefer the new name. But Ruff chose the other one and we originally created this message in anticipation for compatibility with ruff. Is it worth the possible confusion ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We can easily rename. ruff only supports codes for now, so renaming is just a change in output and documentation. That should be fine for them? Considering astral-sh/ruff#8946 was merged by @charliermarsh perhaps they can confirm that a rename should be fine for them as well?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
They fixed it in 0.6.1 / astral-sh/ruff#12905. There's a comment saying we should have named it "too-many-positional-parameters (astral-sh/ruff#12619 (comment)).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I get it. But leaving it this way maintains the rhyme between the existing max-args setting and the new max-positional-arguments setting.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah and the churn in ruff and pylint if we change it again would be pretty bad. (tbh I didn't consciously make this distinction between arguments/parameters internally myself)
setuptools version is pinned to 70.3.0 to resolve an issue related to this ticket: pypa/setuptools#4483 pylint version is forced to >=3.3.0, where max-positional-arguments functionality has been added and max-positional-arguments is set to 16: pylint-dev/pylint#9842 Changes in functional test test_stateless_sec_group_list_find because sec group lists from a sec group can be ordered differently each time a request is sent to obtain them. Changed custom_mtu_size default value from 1350 to 1300 because some tests started failing on some jobs with: "Requested MTU is too big, maximum is 1314" Change-Id: Ie92d9a2f4e0dd08aeadfd720bdf4963b532decf3
Type of Changes
Description
Closes #9099