CI: make docstring checks "instantaneous" #57878
Closed
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…nce' into improve_docstring_check_performance
…nce' into improve_docstring_check_performance
…nce' into improve_docstring_check_performance
…ck_reduce_pep8_calls # Conflicts: # scripts/tests/test_validate_docstrings.py
…ck_reduce_pep8_calls
…ck_reduce_pep8_calls
|
Sorry @dontgoto, this is now conflicting. Results look very impressive, thanks for the work on this. If you can split it in different PRs that would be great, it'll make reviewing easier. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR reduces the
check_code.sh docstringsruntime to under 10 seconds.The key changes are in
validate_pep8_for_examples, which was refactored to call the pep8 CLI once with a list of files to analyse. The functions in the call stack above were changed to handle lists instead of single objects as well. I also added a new test since theprefixparameter was not properly tested before.Let me know if you'd rather see this split into multiple PRs.
I'd also wait until #57879 is merged as there will be quite a few merge conflicts.
Unrelated code checks seem to be failing here and in other PRs.