Skip to content
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

CI: cleanup style check #477

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Dec 16, 2020
Merged

Conversation

madsbk
Copy link
Member

@madsbk madsbk commented Dec 16, 2020

This PR clean up the style check output by capturing both stdout and stderr.
Also isort line-length is now 88, which is what black and flake8 use.

@madsbk madsbk added 2 - In Progress Currently a work in progress improvement Improvement / enhancement to an existing function non-breaking Non-breaking change labels Dec 16, 2020
@madsbk madsbk force-pushed the ci_style_check branch 2 times, most recently from f463832 to df1c0fd Compare December 16, 2020 12:45
@codecov-io
Copy link

codecov-io commented Dec 16, 2020

Codecov Report

Merging #477 (02c5f49) into branch-0.18 (6e6d868) will increase coverage by 0.17%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@               Coverage Diff               @@
##           branch-0.18     #477      +/-   ##
===============================================
+ Coverage        90.23%   90.40%   +0.17%     
===============================================
  Files               15       15              
  Lines             1126     1126              
===============================================
+ Hits              1016     1018       +2     
+ Misses             110      108       -2     
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
dask_cuda/__init__.py 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
dask_cuda/cuda_worker.py 77.01% <100.00%> (ø)
dask_cuda/explicit_comms/comms.py 99.00% <100.00%> (ø)
dask_cuda/proxy_object.py 87.79% <100.00%> (+0.67%) ⬆️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 6e6d868...02c5f49. Read the comment docs.

@madsbk madsbk marked this pull request as ready for review December 16, 2020 14:27
@madsbk madsbk requested review from a team as code owners December 16, 2020 14:27
@madsbk madsbk added 3 - Ready for Review Ready for review by team and removed 2 - In Progress Currently a work in progress labels Dec 16, 2020
Copy link
Member

@quasiben quasiben left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks @madsbk

@madsbk madsbk added 6 - Okay to Auto-Merge and removed 3 - Ready for Review Ready for review by team labels Dec 16, 2020
@rapids-bot rapids-bot bot merged commit b170b29 into rapidsai:branch-0.18 Dec 16, 2020
@jakirkham
Copy link
Member

Thanks Mads! 😄

Tried to fix this a while back ( #350 ), but ran into issues 😅 Guess the linter tools were too old

hooks:
- id: black
- repo: https://gitlab.com/pycqa/flake8
rev: 3.7.7
rev: 3.8.3
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sorry for the late review here, but why did we pin those versions specifically instead of those from the integration repo (see https://github.com/rapidsai/integration/blob/branch-0.18/conda/recipes/versions.yaml) ?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think some of these tools weren't respecting line length configuration values in some cases. Ran into similar issues as well. Though this does a raise a good point, would be good to propagate these version bumps into the integration repo.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ideas on what's the right approach? Pinning those exact versions in integration will probably lead all other RAPIDS repos to require some reformatting.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
improvement Improvement / enhancement to an existing function non-breaking Non-breaking change
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants