style: format code with Ruff Formatter #14
Conversation
![deepsource-autofix[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/57168?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
This commit fixes the style issues introduced in 9badcb6 according to the output from Ruff Formatter. Details: None
|
By default, I don't review pull requests opened by bots. If you would like me to review this pull request anyway, you can request a review via the |
Welcome @deepsource-autofix[bot]! 🎉Great PR! I've analyzed your code changes for:
Ready to see the full review?
Let's make your code even better together! 🚀 |
|
Important Review skippedBot user detected. To trigger a single review, invoke the You can disable this status message by setting the Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
Reviewer's Guide by SourceryThe pull request applies code style formatting using Ruff Formatter across multiple test and source files. It primarily involves reformatting function parameters, assertion methods, import statements, and class attribute definitions to improve consistency and readability. Flow diagram of code formatting changesgraph TD
A[Source Code] -->|Ruff Formatter| B[Formatted Code]
subgraph Changes
C[Import Statement Formatting]
D[Function Parameter Formatting]
E[Class Attribute Formatting]
end
B --> C
B --> D
B --> E
style B fill:#90EE90
style C fill:#FFE4B5
style D fill:#FFE4B5
style E fill:#FFE4B5
File-Level Changes
Tips and commandsInteracting with Sourcery
Customizing Your ExperienceAccess your dashboard to:
Getting Help
|
![sourcery-ai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/48477?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
|
Here's the code health analysis summary for commits Analysis Summary
|
![greptile-apps[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/867647?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
PR Summary
Applied Ruff Formatter across multiple Python files to standardize code formatting, focusing on consistent style and improved readability.
- Consolidated multi-line method chains into single lines in test files for better conciseness
- Removed unnecessary trailing commas and line breaks throughout the codebase
- Reformatted
NO_ROOT_DIRviolation message in violations.py from multi-line to single line - Simplified function calls and parameter alignments while maintaining functionality
- Standardized import statements by consolidating related imports into single lines
💡 (1/5) You can manually trigger the bot by mentioning @greptileai in a comment!
15 file(s) reviewed, no comment(s)
Edit PR Review Bot Settings | Greptile
![codereviewbot-ai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/309638?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
| for tag, rows in library.items(): | ||
| lines.extend(["", tag, "~" * len(tag), ""]) | ||
| lines.extend( | ||
| rst_table( | ||
| ( | ||
| "Style URL", | ||
| "Description", | ||
| ), | ||
| rows, | ||
| ) | ||
| ) | ||
| lines.extend(rst_table(("Style URL", "Description"), rows)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The repeated calls to rst_table within the loop for each tag can lead to performance issues, especially if the number of tags is large. Each call to rst_table processes and formats the table, which could be inefficient.
Recommendation: Consider restructuring the code to accumulate all necessary data first and then make a single call to rst_table outside the loop. This would reduce the overhead of repeated function calls and improve performance.
| lines = [] | ||
| for tag, rows in library.items(): | ||
| lines.extend(["", tag, "~" * len(tag), ""]) | ||
| lines.extend( | ||
| rst_table( | ||
| ( | ||
| "Style URL", | ||
| "Description", | ||
| ), | ||
| rows, | ||
| ) | ||
| ) | ||
| lines.extend(rst_table(("Style URL", "Description"), rows)) | ||
| return lines |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The function _build_library directly manipulates list operations like extend within the loop to build the final list of lines. This approach is tightly coupled with the data structure and formatting details, which can hinder maintainability and readability.
Recommendation: Abstract these operations into a more cohesive function or use a higher-level data structure that encapsulates these details. This would make the code easier to read, maintain, and modify in the future.
| if library_dir: | ||
| # Style in a directory | ||
| from_resources_root = without_suffix.relative_to(library_dir) | ||
| bis = BuiltinStyle( | ||
| formatted=str(without_suffix), | ||
| path_from_resources_root=from_resources_root.as_posix(), | ||
| ) | ||
| bis = BuiltinStyle(formatted=str(without_suffix), path_from_resources_root=from_resources_root.as_posix()) | ||
| else: | ||
| # Style from the built-in library | ||
| package_path = resource_path.relative_to(builtin_resources_root().parent.parent) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The code lacks error handling for the relative_to method, which can raise a ValueError if resource_path is not a subpath of library_dir or builtin_resources_root(). This can lead to uncaught exceptions that disrupt the execution flow.
Recommended Solution:
Add error handling around the relative_to calls to manage the potential ValueError, possibly logging an error and skipping the current iteration or providing a fallback mechanism.
| formatted=str(without_suffix), | ||
| path_from_resources_root=from_resources_root.as_posix(), | ||
| ) | ||
| bis = BuiltinStyle(formatted=str(without_suffix), path_from_resources_root=from_resources_root.as_posix()) | ||
| else: | ||
| # Style from the built-in library |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The function builtin_resources_root() is called twice in close succession within the same block of code. Since the result of this function is cached, it's more efficient to call it once and store the result in a variable if it's used multiple times in the same scope.
Recommended Solution:
Store the result of builtin_resources_root() in a variable and use this variable instead of calling the function repeatedly.
| class ProjectViolations(ViolationEnum): | ||
| """Project initialization violations.""" | ||
|
|
||
| NO_ROOT_DIR = ( | ||
| 101, | ||
| f"No root directory detected.{CONFIG_RUN_NITPICK_INIT_OR_CONFIGURE_STYLE_MANUALLY}", | ||
| ) | ||
| NO_ROOT_DIR = (101, f"No root directory detected.{CONFIG_RUN_NITPICK_INIT_OR_CONFIGURE_STYLE_MANUALLY}") | ||
| NO_PYTHON_FILE = (102, "No Python file was found on the root dir and subdir of {root!r}") | ||
| MISSING_FILE = (103, " should exist{extra}") | ||
| FILE_SHOULD_BE_DELETED = (104, " should be deleted{extra}") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Uniqueness of Error Codes
The error codes defined in ProjectViolations (101, 102, 103, 104) need to be unique not only within this enum but across the entire application to avoid conflicts. If there are other enums or systems that define error codes, it's crucial to ensure that these codes do not overlap with others.
Recommendation: Implement a centralized system or registry to manage all error codes across different modules or classes to prevent duplication and ensure each code is unique.
| age: 27 | ||
| from: Liverpool | ||
| """, | ||
| ), | ||
| ) | ||
| ).assert_file_contents(filename, datadir / "jmes-list-key-expected.yaml") | ||
| project.api_check().assert_violations() | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The nested YAML structure defined in the test is complex and could affect readability and maintainability. Simplifying these structures or breaking them down into smaller, more manageable components could improve the clarity and maintainability of the test code. Consider refactoring to reduce complexity and enhance readability.
| - name: Install tox | ||
| run: python -m pip install tox | ||
| """, | ||
| ), | ||
| ).assert_file_contents( | ||
| filename, datadir / "dict-search-by-key-expected.yaml" | ||
| ).api_check().assert_violations() | ||
| ) | ||
| ).assert_file_contents(filename, datadir / "dict-search-by-key-expected.yaml").api_check().assert_violations() | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| def test_list_of_scalars_only_add_elements_that_do_not_exist(tmp_path, datadir): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The test function test_list_of_dicts_search_missing_element_by_key_and_change_add_element_individually lacks direct assertions within the test body, which could lead to unclear test outcomes. It's important for test functions to include assertions that directly relate to the expected outcomes to ensure clarity and effectiveness of the tests.
Recommendation:
Include assertions within the test function to check that the workflow steps are correctly modified or added as expected. This will make the test outcomes more transparent and easier to understand.
| uses: actions/replacing-duplicated-element@v2 | ||
| """, | ||
| ) | ||
| ).assert_file_contents( | ||
| filename, datadir / "same-key-expected.yaml" | ||
| ).api_check().assert_violations() | ||
| ).assert_file_contents(filename, datadir / "same-key-expected.yaml").api_check().assert_violations() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The test test_more_than_one_element_with_the_same_key_only_first_one_will_be_considered checks for duplicated keys but does not handle or report duplicates beyond the first occurrence. This might not reflect the actual behavior needed in workflows where multiple occurrences of the same key could lead to issues.
Recommendation:
Enhance the test to handle and assert the behavior or errors when multiple occurrences of the same key are present. This will ensure the test is robust and reflects more realistic scenarios.
| - hooks: | ||
| - id: whatever | ||
| """ | ||
| ).api_check_then_fix( | ||
| Fuss(True, PRE_COMMIT_CONFIG_YAML, 368, " has missing values:", "fail_fast: true") | ||
| ) | ||
| ).api_check_then_fix(Fuss(True, PRE_COMMIT_CONFIG_YAML, 368, " has missing values:", "fail_fast: true")) | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| def test_missing_repo_key(tmp_path): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The test test_missing_repos uses a typo 'grepos' instead of 'repos'. If this is intended to simulate an error condition, it would be beneficial to add a comment explaining that this is intentional to avoid confusion for future maintainers. If it's an actual mistake, correcting it to 'repos' would be necessary to ensure the test's validity.
| [tool.nitpick] | ||
| style = ["root", "mypy", "pre-commit/python", "pre-commit/bash"] | ||
| """ | ||
| ).pre_commit( | ||
| datadir / "2-untouched-pre-commit.yaml" | ||
| ).api_check_then_fix( | ||
| partial_names=[PRE_COMMIT_CONFIG_YAML], | ||
| ).assert_file_contents( | ||
| PRE_COMMIT_CONFIG_YAML, datadir / "2-untouched-pre-commit.yaml" | ||
| ) | ||
| ).pre_commit(datadir / "2-untouched-pre-commit.yaml").api_check_then_fix( | ||
| partial_names=[PRE_COMMIT_CONFIG_YAML] | ||
| ).assert_file_contents(PRE_COMMIT_CONFIG_YAML, datadir / "2-untouched-pre-commit.yaml") | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| def test_pre_commit_section_without_dot_deprecated(tmp_path): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The test in lines 434-442 checks that the pre-commit configuration file remains unchanged after loading multiple styles. To enhance this test, consider verifying specific properties or settings within the file to ensure that all configurations from the multiple styles are applied correctly. This would provide a more robust test of the system's ability to handle multiple configurations.
This commit fixes the style issues introduced in 9badcb6 according to the output
from Ruff Formatter.
Details: None
Summary by Sourcery
Enhancements: