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

Move to ruff linter in pre-commit and CI #548

Open
jakobkruse1 opened this issue Mar 27, 2024 · 1 comment
Open

Move to ruff linter in pre-commit and CI #548

jakobkruse1 opened this issue Mar 27, 2024 · 1 comment
Labels
CI GH actions for testing and packaging good first issue Good for newcomers

Comments

@jakobkruse1
Copy link
Collaborator

jakobkruse1 commented Mar 27, 2024

As discussed in #530, we should use the new ruff linter to achieve significant speedups.
ruff is meant to replace all other linters in the current pre-commit and CI definitions.
ruff also should be used for formatting instead of black.
Linter rules are up for discussion while implementing.

@jakobkruse1 jakobkruse1 added good first issue Good for newcomers CI GH actions for testing and packaging labels Mar 27, 2024
@AnesBenmerzoug
Copy link
Collaborator

Having used it a bit in another project, I have to admit that I like ruff. It's fast and automatically resolves many of the issues instead of just complaining about them.

I think this issue is missing some details. Could you please answer these questions in the description?

  • Would ruff be added to the existing hooks or would it replace them?
  • Should we also use ruff's formatting instead of black's formatting? If so, we should be careful to ignore the specific commit that reformats the code in the git history.
  • What new linter options would be enabled? I would also err on the side of too little rather than too much.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
CI GH actions for testing and packaging good first issue Good for newcomers
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants