[ci] Enable pylint for tests/python/ci #11666
Conversation
driazati
force-pushed
the
pylint_ci
branch
2 times, most recently
from
43af363 to
489cad3
Compare
|
thanks @driazati, please check off the relevant items in the GH issue when you merge |
driazati
force-pushed
the
pylint_ci
branch
2 times, most recently
from
4b8b843 to
b330d8c
Compare
tests/python/ci/test_ci.py
Outdated
| @@ -49,7 +38,7 @@ def run(pr_body, requested_reviewers, existing_review_users, expected_reviewers) | |||
| git.run("remote", "add", "origin", "https://github.com/apache/tvm.git") | |||
| reviews = [{"user": {"login": r}} for r in existing_review_users] | |||
| requested_reviewers = [{"login": r} for r in requested_reviewers] | |||
| proc = subprocess.run( | |||
| proc = subprocess.run( # pylint: disable=subprocess-run-check | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looking at the subprocess-run-check linter rule, shouldn't we pass check explicitly to resolve it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's checked manually to add some extra error info
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If you set check=False, that continues to work as far as I can tell?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That still trips pylint as far as I can tell, it wants to see check=True only
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you check again? I tried it locally and it worked 🤔
|
Built docs for commit 3e14f5f4263039401831d4ed32f3ffa6353f3e19 can be found here. |
driazati
force-pushed
the
pylint_ci
branch
2 times, most recently
from
ab9d4b0 to
a3d9813
Compare
|
@Mousius this is ready for another look |
|
Built docs for commit a3d981345a0b314e7d5ad52f07495d84a513891c can be found here. |
This fixes up the pylint issues as part of apache#11414 for the CI tests
This fixes up the pylint issues as part of apache#11414 for the CI tests
This fixes up the pylint issues as part of #11414 for the CI tests
Thanks for contributing to TVM! Please refer to guideline https://tvm.apache.org/docs/contribute/ for useful information and tips. After the pull request is submitted, please request code reviews from Reviewers by @ them in the pull request thread.
cc @Mousius @areusch