On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 03:00:21AM -0500, Francesco Romani wrote: > > > > > Recently, we've had a bugs > > http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/24242/ > > that could have been avoided had we used pylint to check our code before > > its usage. Two other bugs-in-waiting can be quickly removed > > http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/24313/ > > http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/24412/ > > > > I would like to suggest > > http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/24382/ > > "make check: add a pylint check" > > > > We have a long way to go before pylint is happy with our code, but I > > believe that pylinting some of our modules is a good start. > > > > The down sides are many: it's slow, it's another dependency, it has > > false negatives, and I do not yet understand how it behaves > > (particularly, the interdependency between checked modules). > > > > What do you think? Should we add it? > > +1 > > My take: I am for it, or at very least to give it a try, following the path > you suggested. > > I use pylint in a few other projects and it saved me from some bugs > and led to improvements. > IMO it is worth its price.
While I'm waiting for more acks/nacks, could infra add "pylint" to our Jenkins slaves? Regarding Nir's on-gerrit comment: I'd like to have pylint run by default in order to avoid adding new pylint-detectable bugs. If we do not add a pylint_blacklist now, I do not believe we'd ever make it empty. _______________________________________________ Infra mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/infra
