Skip to content

MNT: ignore PTH linting ruleset by subpackage instead of globally#16917

Merged
pllim merged 1 commit intoastropy:mainfrom
neutrinoceros:mnt/ignore_pth_ruleset_by_subpackage
Sep 3, 2024
Merged

MNT: ignore PTH linting ruleset by subpackage instead of globally#16917
pllim merged 1 commit intoastropy:mainfrom
neutrinoceros:mnt/ignore_pth_ruleset_by_subpackage

Conversation

@neutrinoceros
Copy link
Contributor

@neutrinoceros neutrinoceros commented Sep 2, 2024

Description

This is step 0 in my plan to revive #16060: I plan to re-issue this PR in smaller bits targetting specific subpackages to make it easier to cycle.

I intend to keep @MridulS as a commit co-author every step of the way :)

  • By checking this box, the PR author has requested that maintainers do NOT use the "Squash and Merge" button. Maintainers should respect this when possible; however, the final decision is at the discretion of the maintainer that merges the PR.

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Sep 2, 2024

Thank you for your contribution to Astropy! 🌌 This checklist is meant to remind the package maintainers who will review this pull request of some common things to look for.

  • Do the proposed changes actually accomplish desired goals?
  • Do the proposed changes follow the Astropy coding guidelines?
  • Are tests added/updated as required? If so, do they follow the Astropy testing guidelines?
  • Are docs added/updated as required? If so, do they follow the Astropy documentation guidelines?
  • Is rebase and/or squash necessary? If so, please provide the author with appropriate instructions. Also see instructions for rebase and squash.
  • Did the CI pass? If no, are the failures related? If you need to run daily and weekly cron jobs as part of the PR, please apply the "Extra CI" label. Codestyle issues can be fixed by the bot.
  • Is a change log needed? If yes, did the change log check pass? If no, add the "no-changelog-entry-needed" label. If this is a manual backport, use the "skip-changelog-checks" label unless special changelog handling is necessary.
  • Is this a big PR that makes a "What's new?" entry worthwhile and if so, is (1) a "what's new" entry included in this PR and (2) the "whatsnew-needed" label applied?
  • At the time of adding the milestone, if the milestone set requires a backport to release branch(es), apply the appropriate "backport-X.Y.x" label(s) before merge.

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Sep 2, 2024

👋 Thank you for your draft pull request! Do you know that you can use [ci skip] or [skip ci] in your commit messages to skip running continuous integration tests until you are ready?

from setuptools_scm import get_version

version = get_version(root=pth.join("..", ".."), relative_to=__file__)
version = get_version(root=Path("../.."), relative_to=__file__)
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 this is OS dependent. .parent or .parents.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

done

Copy link
Contributor

@mhvk mhvk left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Seems very sensible!

@mhvk
Copy link
Contributor

mhvk commented Sep 2, 2024

I think this one doesn't need a changelog entry, but obviously others, where there is an impact in what we accept, might.

Copy link
Member

@pllim pllim left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM except a minor comment. Thanks!

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Cannot really test this until next time it runs and has something to update.

Why call Path(project_file) twice instead of assigning it to variable?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

good catch. I imagine this change was originally obtained directly via ruff. Updated !

Copy link
Member

@nstarman nstarman left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks!

Co-authored-by: Mridul Seth <git@mriduls.com>
@neutrinoceros neutrinoceros force-pushed the mnt/ignore_pth_ruleset_by_subpackage branch from 142822c to bf903a4 Compare September 3, 2024 15:48
Copy link
Member

@pllim pllim left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants