Merge ppa-dev-tools:cleanup-tox-lint into ppa-dev-tools:main
Proposed by
Bryce Harrington
Status: | Merged |
---|---|
Merged at revision: | 7bef7a0bbf5a634d9ea9e9e1a04dfebce5f7d4ff |
Proposed branch: | ppa-dev-tools:cleanup-tox-lint |
Merge into: | ppa-dev-tools:main |
Diff against target: |
1352 lines (+176/-157) 26 files modified
ppa/binary_package.py (+3/-3) ppa/constants.py (+1/-1) ppa/debug.py (+3/-3) ppa/dict.py (+5/-5) ppa/io.py (+1/-1) ppa/job.py (+10/-9) ppa/lp.py (+5/-6) ppa/ppa.py (+27/-25) ppa/ppa_group.py (+8/-7) ppa/processes.py (+17/-17) ppa/repository.py (+5/-4) ppa/result.py (+17/-17) ppa/source_package.py (+5/-5) ppa/subtest.py (+7/-6) ppa/suite.py (+8/-7) ppa/text.py (+13/-10) ppa/trigger.py (+6/-5) scripts/ppa (+23/-17) setup.py (+1/-1) tests/helpers.py (+2/-0) tests/test_job.py (+1/-1) tests/test_lp.py (+1/-1) tests/test_result.py (+1/-1) tests/test_scripts_ppa.py (+2/-1) tests/test_subtest.py (+1/-1) tests/test_trigger.py (+3/-3) |
Related bugs: |
Reviewer | Review Type | Date Requested | Status |
---|---|---|---|
Lena Voytek (community) | Approve | ||
PpaDevTools Developers | Pending | ||
Canonical Server Reporter | Pending | ||
Review via email: mp+449388@code.staging.launchpad.net |
Description of the change
This is a collection of lint, tox, etc. cleanups I've collected as I prepare for the 0.5 release. I'm submitting this separately from feature branches for ease of reviewing.
I have a goal of eventually making ppa-dev-tools pass tox without issue, however there's a lot of tox output to go through, so this is just a start. However, the rest of these cleanups address pylint, etc. issues to a degree that it should make the codebase lint-clean. The linter is run as part of the testsuite, so:
$ make check
To post a comment you must log in.
There was an error fetching revisions from git servers. Please try again in a few minutes. If the problem persists, contact Launchpad support.
I found two variable instances that were left behind in the naming update, marked them in the diff comments. Otherwise everything here looks good to me! The local variable names seem descriptive enough within context. Function descriptions also look good, added one small nitpick though