Thanks to everyone involved in the discussion. I've taken a look at the first 50 recently updated Pull Requests. Only few of them were affected. I hope it wouldn't be too hard to fix them.
In any case, here you can find instructions on how to run formatter: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/BEAM/Python+Tips (section "Formatting"). On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 12:42 PM Michał Walenia <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > the PR is merged, all checks were green :) > Enjoy prettier Python! > > On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 11:11 AM Ismaël Mejía <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Agree no need for vote for this because the consensus is clear and the >> sole >> impact I can think of are pending PRs that will be broken. In the Java >> case >> what we did was to just notice every PR that was affected by the change. >> And clearly document how to validate and autoformat the code. >> >> So the earlier the better, go go autoformat! >> >> On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 1:38 AM Robert Bradshaw <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> No, perhaps not. I agree there's consensus, just wondering what the >>> next steps should be to get this in. (The presubmits look like they're >>> all passing, with the exception of some breakage in java that should >>> be completely unrelated. Of course there's already merge conflicts...) >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 3:55 PM Ahmet Altay <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> > Do we need a formal vote? There is consensus on this thread and on the >>> PR. >>> > >>> > On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 3:37 PM Robert Bradshaw <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> The PR is looking good. Should we call a vote? >>> >> >>> >> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 11:03 AM Robert Bradshaw <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >> > >>> >> > Thanks. I commented on the PR. I think if we're going this route we >>> >> > should add a pre-commit, plus instructions on how to run the tool >>> >> > (similar to spotless). >>> >> > >>> >> > On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 10:00 AM Udi Meiri <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >> > > >>> >> > > I've done a pass on the PR on code I'm familiar with. >>> >> > > Please make a pass and add your suggestions on the PR. >>> >> > > >>> >> > > On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 7:15 AM Ismaël Mejía <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> Java build fails on any unformatted code so python probably >>> should be like that. >>> >> > >> We have to ensure however that it fails early on that. >>> >> > >> As Robert said time to debate the knobs :) >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 3:19 PM Kamil Wasilewski < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > >>> PR is ready: https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/10684. Please >>> share your comments ;-) I've managed to reduce the impact a bit: >>> >> > >>> 501 files changed, 18245 insertions(+), 19495 deletions(-) >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > >>> We still need to consider how to enforce the usage of >>> autoformatter. Pre-commit sounds like a nice addition, but it still needs >>> to be installed manually by a developer. On the other hand, Jenkins >>> precommit job that fails if any unformatted code is detected looks like too >>> strict. What do you think? >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > >>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 8:37 PM Robert Bradshaw < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >> > >>>> >>> >> > >>>> Thanks! Now we get to debate what knobs to twiddle :-P >>> >> > >>>> >>> >> > >>>> FYI, I did a simple run (just pushed to >>> >> > >>>> https://github.com/apache/beam/compare/master...robertwb:yapf) >>> to see >>> >> > >>>> the impact. The diff is >>> >> > >>>> >>> >> > >>>> $ git diff --stat master >>> >> > >>>> ... >>> >> > >>>> 547 files changed, 22118 insertions(+), 21129 deletions(-) >>> >> > >>>> >>> >> > >>>> For reference >>> >> > >>>> >>> >> > >>>> $ find sdks/python/apache_beam -name '*.py' | xargs wc >>> >> > >>>> ... >>> >> > >>>> 200424 612002 7431637 total >>> >> > >>>> >>> >> > >>>> which means a little over 10% of lines get touched. I think >>> there are >>> >> > >>>> some options, such as >>> SPLIT_ALL_TOP_LEVEL_COMMA_SEPARATED_VALUES and >>> >> > >>>> COALESCE_BRACKETS, that will conform more to the style we are >>> already >>> >> > >>>> (mostly) following. >>> >> > >>>> >>> >> > >>>> >>> >> > >>>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 1:59 AM Kamil Wasilewski >>> >> > >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> > >>>> > >>> >> > >>>> > Thank you Michał for creating the ticket. I have some free >>> time and I'd like to volunteer myself for this task. >>> >> > >>>> > Indeed, it looks like there's consensus for `yapf`, so I'll >>> try `yapf` first. >>> >> > >>>> > >>> >> > >>>> > Best, >>> >> > >>>> > Kamil >>> >> > >>>> > >>> >> > >>>> > >>> >> > >>>> > On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 10:37 AM Michał Walenia < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >> > >>>> >> >>> >> > >>>> >> Hi all, >>> >> > >>>> >> I created a JIRA issue for this and summarized the >>> available tools >>> >> > >>>> >> >>> >> > >>>> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-9175 >>> >> > >>>> >> >>> >> > >>>> >> Cheers, >>> >> > >>>> >> Michal >>> >> > >>>> >> >>> >> > >>>> >> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 1:49 AM Udi Meiri <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >> > >>>> >>> >>> >> > >>>> >>> Sorry, backing off on this due to time constraints. >>> >> > >>>> >>> >>> >> > >>>> >>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 3:39 PM Udi Meiri < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >> > >>>> >>>> >>> >> > >>>> >>>> It sounds like there's a consensus for yapf. I volunteer >>> to take this on >>> >> > >>>> >>>> >>> >> > >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020, 10:31 Udi Meiri <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >> > >>>> >>>>> >>> >> > >>>> >>>>> +1 to autoformatting >>> >> > >>>> >>>>> >>> >> > >>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 9:57 AM Luke Cwik < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >> > >>>> >>>>>> >>> >> > >>>> >>>>>> +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 >>> >> > >>>> >> >>> >> > >>>> >> >>> >> > >>>> >> >>> >> > >>>> >> -- >>> >> > >>>> >> >>> >> > >>>> >> Michał Walenia >>> >> > >>>> >> Polidea | Software Engineer >>> >> > >>>> >> >>> >> > >>>> >> M: +48 791 432 002 >>> >> > >>>> >> E: [email protected] >>> >> > >>>> >> >>> >> > >>>> >> Unique Tech >>> >> > >>>> >> Check out our projects! >>> >> > > -- > > Michał Walenia > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Software Engineer > > M: +48 791 432 002 <+48791432002> > E: [email protected] > > Unique Tech > Check out our projects! <https://www.polidea.com/our-work> >
