This is from my .emacs. The way it works is that you select a region and
then M-x pep8-region.
(defun pep8-region (&optional b e)
(interactive "r")
(call-process-region b e
"/home/jbapple/.local/bin/autopep8" t t nil
"--indent-size=2" "--max-line-length=90" "-a" "-a"
"-a" "-a" "-a" "-a" "-a" "-a" "--experimental" "-"))
It's . . . not great. For instance, it doesn't understand that if you're
already 4 spaces in at the start of the region, you don't want to revert
back to 0 or 2 spaces in. That said, it can still be helpful. I don't think
this is as sophisticated as clang-format.el.
On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 9:09 AM, Todd Lipcon <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 9:02 AM, Tim Armstrong <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I agree that it might be a little strict at the moment and disallow some
> > reasonable formatting. The tool is controlled by the setup.cfg file in
> the
> > repo so it's easy enough to change the behaviour.
> >
> > I think we have been a little sloppy with Python style in general so I
> > think some of these would be good to change over time. I think the main
> > thing I'd like is to align the tool's behaviour with code reviews - if
> > we're going to be strict about PEP 8 compliance in code reviews we should
> > keep the tool strict.
> >
> > > 109 : E125 continuation line with same indent as next logical line
> > I think this formatting is hard to read and confusing, I'm in favour of
> > leaving this enabled.
> >
> > > 110 : E701 multiple statements on one line (colon)
> > This if because of the one-line if statements we have in the code. I
> don't
> > feel strongly either way as long as we're consistent.
> >
> > > 129 : E231 missing whitespace after ','
> > > 185 : E251 unexpected spaces around keyword / parameter equals
> > > 288 : E502 the backslash is redundant between brackets
> > These seems like sloppy/inconsistent formatting to me, I'm in favour of
> > keeping these enabled and fixing existing code as we go.
> >
> > > 368 : E302 expected 2 blank lines, found 1
> > Our Python code is very inconsistent here, would be nice to make it more
> > consistent. I'm in favour of keeping it enabled and fixing as we go.
> >
> > > 187 : E121 continuation line under-indented for hanging indent
> > > 1295 : E128 continuation line under-indented for visual indent
> > On one hand it would be nice to follow the PEP 8 style here (
> > https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0008/#indentation) but the other
> > idioms
> > seem fine to me. I've been asked on Python code reviews to switch to the
> > PEP 8 indentation style before so I think we should align the tools
> > behaviour with what we're going to ask for code reviews.
> >
>
>
> Alright, I agree with all of the above. One suggestion, though: is it
> possible to get something like 'autopep8' to run in a 'patch formatting'
> mode where it only reformats changed lines? Then we could more easily just
> run a single command to ensure that our patches are properly formatted
> before submitting to review. Or, at the very least, some instructions for
> running the same flake8-against-only-my-changed-lines that gerrit is
> running?
>
> -Todd
>
>
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 7:48 PM, Todd Lipcon <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > It seems like flake8 might need some adjustment of its policies. Here
> are
> > > the most common issues in the current test code:
> > >
> > > 109 : E125 continuation line with same indent as next logical line
> > > 110 : E701 multiple statements on one line (colon)
> > > 129 : E231 missing whitespace after ','
> > > 185 : E251 unexpected spaces around keyword / parameter equals
> > > 187 : E121 continuation line under-indented for hanging indent
> > > 288 : E502 the backslash is redundant between brackets
> > > 368 : E302 expected 2 blank lines, found 1
> > > 1295 : E128 continuation line under-indented for visual indent
> > >
> > > Maybe worth just disabling some of the indentation-related ones to
> start?
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 4:09 PM, Tim Armstrong <
> > > [email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I have a few updates.
> > > >
> > > > I added an automatic build job for docs changes:
> > > > https://jenkins.impala.io/job/gerrit-docs-auto-test/
> > > >
> > > > I'm going to disable the "Build started" message for
> > > > gerrit-code-review-checks. It seems a bit too chatty. Let me know if
> > you
> > > > disagree.
> > > >
> > > > I'm adding a job that automatically does some checks on the diff and
> > > posts
> > > > code review comments. I started off with Python flake8 comments.
> > > >
> > > > Let me know if you see any problems or if it turns out to be too
> noisy.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 11:55 AM, Tim Armstrong <
> > [email protected]
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi All,
> > > > > I'm enabling an automatic precommit job for code reviews uploaded
> > to
> > > > > gerrit that will run RAT, clang-tidy and a GCC debug compilation.
> > This
> > > is
> > > > > to provide faster feedback on code reviews:
> > https://issues.apache.org/
> > > > > jira/browse/IMPALA-7317 . I'll add some more checks but I'm wanting
> > to
> > > > > test the basic mechanism for a bit now.
> > > > >
> > > > > It excludes docs/ commits.
> > > > >
> > > > > Let me know if you see any problems with it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Tim
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Todd Lipcon
> > > Software Engineer, Cloudera
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Todd Lipcon
> Software Engineer, Cloudera
>
