+1 to autoformatters. Also the Beam Java SDK went through a one time pass to apply the spotless formatting.
On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 9:52 PM Ahmet Altay <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 to autoformatters and yapf. It appears to be a well maintained project. > I do support making a one time pass to apply formatting the whole code base. > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 5:38 PM Chad Dombrova <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >>> It'd be good if there was a way to only apply to violating (or at >>> least changed) lines. >> >> >> I assumed the first thing we’d do is convert all of the code in one go, >> since it’s a very safe operation. Did you have something else in mind? >> >> -chad >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 1:56 PM Chad Dombrova <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> > +1 to autoformatting >>> > >>> > Let me add some nuance to that. >>> > >>> > The way I see it there are 2 varieties of formatters: those which >>> take the original formatting into consideration (autopep8) and those which >>> disregard it (yapf, black). >>> > >>> > I much prefer yapf to black, because you have plenty of options to >>> tweak with yapf (enough to make the output a pretty close match to the >>> current Beam style), and you can mark areas to preserve the original >>> formatting, which could be very useful with Pipeline building with pipe >>> operators. Please don't pick black. >>> > >>> > autopep8 is more along the lines of spotless in Java -- it only >>> corrects code that breaks the project's style rules. The big problem with >>> Beam's current style is that it is so esoteric that autopep8 can't enforce >>> it -- and I'm not just talking about 2-spaces, which I don't really have a >>> problem with -- the problem is the use of either 2 or 4 spaces depending on >>> context (expression start vs hanging indent, etc). This is my *biggest* >>> gripe about the current style. PyCharm doesn't have enough control >>> either. So, if we can choose a style that can be expressed by flake8 or >>> pycodestyle then we can use autopep8 to enforce it. >>> > >>> > I'd prefer autopep8 to yapf because I like having a little wiggle room >>> to influence the style, but on a big project like Beam all that wiggle room >>> ends up to minor but noticeable inconsistencies in style throughout the >>> project. yapf ensures completely consistent style, but the tradeoff is >>> that it's sometimes ugly, especially in scenarios with similar repeated >>> entries like argparse, where yapf might insert line breaks in visually >>> inconsistent and unappealing ways depending on the lengths of the keywords >>> and expressions involved. >>> > >>> > Either way (but especially if we choose yapf) I think it'd be a nice >>> addition to setup a pre-commit [1] config so that people can opt in to >>> running *lightweight* autofixers prior to commit. This will not only >>> reduce dev frustration but will also reduce the amount of cpu cycles that >>> Jenkins spends pointing out lint errors. >>> > >>> > [1] https://pre-commit.com/ >>> > >>> > -chad >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 12:52 PM Ismaël Mejía <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Last time we discussed this there seems not to be much progress into >>> autoformatting. >>> >> This tool looks more tweakable, so maybe it could be more appropriate >>> for Beam's use case. >>> >> https://github.com/google/yapf/ >>> >> WDYT? >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 10:50 AM Łukasz Gajowy <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> +1 for any autoformatter for Python SDK that does the job. My >>> experience is that since spotless in Java SDK I would never start a new >>> Java project without it. So many great benefits not only for one person >>> coding but for all community. >>> >>> >>> >>> It is a GitHub UI issue that you cannot easily browse past the >>> reformat. It is not actually that hard, but does take a couple extra clicks >>> to get GitHub to display blame before a reformat. It is easier with the >>> command line. I do a lot of code history digging and the global Java >>> reformat is not really a problem. >>> >>> >>> >>> It's actually one more click on Github but I agree it's not the best >>> way to search the history. The most convenient and clear one I've found so >>> far is in Jetbrains IDEs (Intelij) where you can: >>> >>> >>> >>> right click on line number -> "annotate" -> click again -> "annotate >>> previous revision" -> ... >>> >>> >>> >>> You can also use "compare with" to see the diff between two >>> revisions. >>> >>> >>> >>> Łukasz >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> czw., 30 maj 2019 o 06:15 Kenneth Knowles <[email protected]> >>> napisał(a): >>> >>>> >>> >>>> +1 pending good enough tooling (I can't quite tell - seems there >>> are some issues?) >>> >>>> >>> >>>> On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 2:40 PM Katarzyna Kucharczyk < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> What else actually we gain? My guess is faster PR review >>> iteration. We will skip some of conversations about code style. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> ... >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Last but not least, new contributor may be less discouraged. When >>> I started contribute I didn’t know how to format my code and I lost a lot >>> of time to add pylint and adjust IntelliJ. I eventually failed. Currently I >>> write code intuitively and when I don’t forget I rerun tox. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> This is a huge benefit. This is why I supported it so much for >>> Java. It is a community benefit. You do not have to be a contributor to the >>> Python SDK to support this. That is why I am writing here. Just eliminate >>> all discussion of formatting. It doesn't really matter what the resulting >>> format is, if it is not crazy to read. I strongly oppose maintaining a >>> non-default format. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Reformating 20k lines or 200k is not hard. The Java global reformat >>> touched 50k lines. It does not really matter how big it is. Definitely do >>> it all at once if you think the tool is good enough. And you should pin a >>> version, so churn is not a problem. You can upgrade the version and >>> reformat in a PR later and that is also easy. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> It is a GitHub UI issue that you cannot easily browse past the >>> reformat. It is not actually that hard, but does take a couple extra clicks >>> to get GitHub to display blame before a reformat. It is easier with the >>> command line. I do a lot of code history digging and the global Java >>> reformat is not really a problem. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Kenn >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Also everything will be formatted in a same way, so eventually it >>> would be easier to read. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Moreover, as it was mentioned in previous emails - a lot of >>> Jenkins failures won’t take place, so we save time and resources. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> One of disadvantages is that our pipelines has custom syntax and >>> after formatting they looks a little bit weird, but maybe extending the >>> only configurable option in Black - lines, from 88 to 110 would be solution. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Second one is that Black requires Python 3 to be run. I don’t know >>> how big obstacle it would be. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> I believe there are two options how it would be possible to >>> introduce Black. First: just do it, it will hurt but then it would be ok >>> (same as a dentist appointment). Of course it may require some work to >>> adjust linters. On the other hand we can do it gradually and start >>> including sdk parts one by one - maybe it will be less painful? >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> As an example I can share one of projects [2] I know that uses >>> Black (they use also other cool checkers and pre-commit [3]). This is how >>> looks their build with all checks [4]. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> To sum up I believe that if we want improve our coding experience, >>> we should improve our toolset. Black seems be recent and quite popular tool >>> what makes think they won’t stop developing it. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> [1] >>> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4112410/git-change-styling-whitespace-without-changing-ownership-blame >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> [2] https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/oozie-to-airflow >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> [3] https://pre-commit.com >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> [4] >>> https://travis-ci.org/GoogleCloudPlatform/oozie-to-airflow/builds/538725689 >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 2:01 PM Robert Bradshaw < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Reformatting to 4 spaces seems a non-starter to me, as it would >>> change nearly every single line in the codebase (and the loss of all >>> context as well as that particular line). >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> This is probably why the 2-space fork exists. However, we don't >>> conform to that either--we use 2 spaces for indentation, but 4 for >>> continuation indentation. (As for the history of this, this goes back to >>> Google's internal style guide, probably motivated by consistency with C++, >>> Java, ... and the fact that with an indent level of 4 one ends up wrapping >>> lines quite frequently (it's telling that black's default line length is >>> 88)). This turns out to be an easy change to the codebase. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Once we move beyond the 2 vs. 4 whitespace thing, I found that >>> this tool introduces a huge amount of vertical whitespace (e.g. closing >>> parentheses on their own line), e.g. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> def foo( >>> >>>>>> args >>> >>>>>> ): >>> >>>>>> if ( >>> >>>>>> long expression) >>> >>>>>> ): >>> >>>>>> func( >>> >>>>>> args >>> >>>>>> ) >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> I wrote a simple post-processor to put closing parentheses on the >>> same lines, as well as omit the newline after "if (", and disabling >>> formatting of strings, which reduce the churn in our codebase to 15k lines >>> (adding about 4k) out of 200k total. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/8712/files >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> It's still very opinionated, often in different ways then me, and >>> doesn't understand the semantics of the code, but possibly something we >>> could live with given the huge advantages of an autoformatter. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> An intermediate point would be to allow, but not require, >>> autoformatting of changed lines. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> As for being beta quality, it looks like it's got a decent number >>> of contributors and in my book being in the python github project is a >>> strong positive signal. But, due to the above issues, I think we'd have to >>> maintain a fork. (The code is pretty lightweight, the 2 vs. 4 space issue >>> is a 2-line change, and the rest implemented as a post-processing step (for >>> now, incomplete), so it'd be easy to stay in sync with upstream.) >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 11:03 AM Ismaël Mejía <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > > I think the question is if it can be configured in a way to >>> fit our >>> >>>>>> > > current linter's style. I don't think it is feasible to >>> reformat the >>> >>>>>> > > entire Python SDK. >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > It cannot be configured to do what we actually do because Black >>> is >>> >>>>>> > configurable only to support the standard python codestyle >>> guidelines >>> >>>>>> > (PEP-8) which recommends 4 spaces and is what most projects in >>> the >>> >>>>>> > python world use. >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > > Reformatted lines don't allow quick access to the Git >>> history. This >>> >>>>>> > > effect is still visible in the Java SDK. However, I have the >>> feeling >>> >>>>>> > > that this might be less of a problem with Python because the >>> linter has >>> >>>>>> > > more rules than Checkstyle had. >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > Yes that’s the bad side effect but there are always tradeoffs >>> we have >>> >>>>>> > to deal with. >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 10:52 AM Maximilian Michels < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>>>> > > >>> >>>>>> > > I think the question is if it can be configured in a way to >>> fit our >>> >>>>>> > > current linter's style. I don't think it is feasible to >>> reformat the >>> >>>>>> > > entire Python SDK. >>> >>>>>> > > >>> >>>>>> > > Reformatted lines don't allow quick access to the Git >>> history. This >>> >>>>>> > > effect is still visible in the Java SDK. However, I have the >>> feeling >>> >>>>>> > > that this might be less of a problem with Python because the >>> linter has >>> >>>>>> > > more rules than Checkstyle had. >>> >>>>>> > > >>> >>>>>> > > -Max >>> >>>>>> > > >>> >>>>>> > > On 29.05.19 10:16, Ismaël Mejía wrote: >>> >>>>>> > > >> My concerns are: >>> >>>>>> > > >> - The product is clearly marked as beta with a big warning. >>> >>>>>> > > >> - It looks like mostly a single person project. For the >>> same reason I also strongly prefer not using a fork for a specific setting. >>> Fork will only have less people looking at it. >>> >>>>>> > > > >>> >>>>>> > > > I suppose the project is marked as beta because it is >>> recent, it was >>> >>>>>> > > > presented in 2018’s pycon, and because some things can >>> change since >>> >>>>>> > > > auto-formatters are pretty tricky beasts, I think beta in >>> that case is >>> >>>>>> > > > like our own ‘@Experimental’. If you look at the >>> contribution page [1] >>> >>>>>> > > > you can notice that it is less and less a single person >>> project, there >>> >>>>>> > > > have been 93 independent contributions since the project >>> became >>> >>>>>> > > > public, and the fact that it is hosted in the python >>> organization >>> >>>>>> > > > github [2] gives some confidence on the project continuity. >>> >>>>>> > > > >>> >>>>>> > > > You are right however about the fact that the main author >>> seems to be >>> >>>>>> > > > the ‘benevolent’ dictator, and in the 2-spaces issue he can >>> seem >>> >>>>>> > > > arbitrary, but he is just following pep8 style guide >>> recommendations >>> >>>>>> > > > [3]. I am curious of why we (Beam) do not follow the 4 >>> spaces >>> >>>>>> > > > recommendation of PEP-8 or even Google's own Python style >>> guide [4], >>> >>>>>> > > > So, probably it should be to us to reconsider the current >>> policy to >>> >>>>>> > > > adapt to the standards (and the tool). >>> >>>>>> > > > >>> >>>>>> > > > I did a quick run of black with python 2.7 compatibility on >>> >>>>>> > > > sdks/python and got only 4 parsing errors which is positive >>> given the >>> >>>>>> > > > size of our code base. >>> >>>>>> > > > >>> >>>>>> > > > 415 files reformatted, 45 files left unchanged, 4 files >>> failed to reformat. >>> >>>>>> > > > >>> >>>>>> > > > error: cannot format >>> >>>>>> > > > >>> /home/ismael/upstream/beam/sdks/python/apache_beam/runners/interactive/display/display_manager.py: >>> >>>>>> > > > Cannot parse: 47:22: _display_progress = print >>> >>>>>> > > > error: cannot format >>> >>>>>> > > > >>> /home/ismael/upstream/beam/sdks/python/apache_beam/runners/worker/log_handler.py: >>> >>>>>> > > > Cannot parse: 151:18: file=sys.stderr) >>> >>>>>> > > > error: cannot format >>> >>>>>> > > > >>> /home/ismael/upstream/beam/sdks/python/apache_beam/runners/worker/sdk_worker.py: >>> >>>>>> > > > Cannot parse: 160:34: print(traceback_string, >>> file=sys.stderr) >>> >>>>>> > > > error: cannot format >>> >>>>>> > > > >>> /home/ismael/upstream/beam/sdks/python/apache_beam/typehints/trivial_inference.py: >>> >>>>>> > > > Cannot parse: 335:51: print('-->' if pc == last_pc >>> else ' ', >>> >>>>>> > > > end=' ') >>> >>>>>> > > > >>> >>>>>> > > > I still think this can be positive for the project but well >>> I am >>> >>>>>> > > > barely a contributor to the python code base so I let you >>> the python >>> >>>>>> > > > maintainers to reconsider this, in any case it seems like a >>> good >>> >>>>>> > > > improvement for the project. >>> >>>>>> > > > >>> >>>>>> > > > [1] https://github.com/python/black/graphs/contributors >>> >>>>>> > > > [2] https://github.com/python >>> >>>>>> > > > [3] https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0008/#indentation >>> >>>>>> > > > [4] >>> https://github.com/google/styleguide/blob/gh-pages/pyguide.md#34-indentation >>> >>>>>> > > > >>> >>>>>> > > > On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 11:15 PM Ahmet Altay < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>>>> > > >> >>> >>>>>> > > >> I am in the same boat with Robert, I am in favor of >>> autoformatters but I am not familiar with this one. My concerns are: >>> >>>>>> > > >> - The product is clearly marked as beta with a big warning. >>> >>>>>> > > >> - It looks like mostly a single person project. For the >>> same reason I also strongly prefer not using a fork for a specific setting. >>> Fork will only have less people looking at it. >>> >>>>>> > > >> >>> >>>>>> > > >> IMO, this is in an early stage for us. That said lint >>> issues are real as pointed in the thread. If someone would like to give it >>> a try and see how it would look like for us that would be interesting. >>> >>>>>> > > >> >>> >>>>>> > > >> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 4:44 AM Katarzyna Kucharczyk < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>>>> > > >>> >>> >>>>>> > > >>> This sounds really good. A lot of Jenkins jobs failures >>> are caused by lint problems. >>> >>>>>> > > >>> I think it would be great to have something similar to >>> Spotless in Java SDK (I heard there is problem with configuring Black with >>> IntelliJ). >>> >>>>>> > > >>> >>> >>>>>> > > >>> On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 10:52 PM Robert Bradshaw < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>>>> > > >>>> >>> >>>>>> > > >>>> I'm generally in favor of autoformatters, though I >>> haven't looked at >>> >>>>>> > > >>>> how well this particular one works. We might have to go >>> with >>> >>>>>> > > >>>> https://github.com/desbma/black-2spaces given >>> >>>>>> > > >>>> https://github.com/python/black/issues/378 . >>> >>>>>> > > >>>> >>> >>>>>> > > >>>> On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 10:43 PM Pablo Estrada < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>>>> > > >>>>> >>> >>>>>> > > >>>>> This looks pretty good:) I know at least a couple >>> people (myself included) who've been annoyed by having to take care of lint >>> issues that maybe a code formatter could save us. >>> >>>>>> > > >>>>> Thanks for sharing Ismael. >>> >>>>>> > > >>>>> -P. >>> >>>>>> > > >>>>> >>> >>>>>> > > >>>>> >>> >>>>>> > > >>>>> On Mon, May 27, 2019, 12:24 PM Ismaël Mejía < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>>>> > > >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> > > >>>>>> I stumbled by chance into Black [1] a python code auto >>> formatter that >>> >>>>>> > > >>>>>> is becoming the 'de-facto' auto-formatter for python, >>> and wanted to >>> >>>>>> > > >>>>>> bring to the ML Is there interest from the python >>> people to get this >>> >>>>>> > > >>>>>> into the build? >>> >>>>>> > > >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> > > >>>>>> The introduction of spotless for Java has been a good >>> improvement and >>> >>>>>> > > >>>>>> maybe the python code base may benefit of this too. >>> >>>>>> > > >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> > > >>>>>> WDYT? >>> >>>>>> > > >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> > > >>>>>> [1] https://github.com/python/black >>> >>
