I agree that the codebase is lovely and clean and I agree that the PEP8 syntax check helps to encourage this behaviour. Perhaps then the issue is the contributing steps; when I followed the steps to begin contributing (from the README <https://github.com/stephenmcd/cartridge#contributing>) when I ran the tests the test failed. That's why I went ahead and attempted to fix these things first.
I've just tried installing the explicit versions of pep8 and pyflakes that your tests use and that seems ignore the PEP8 errors that I was seeing originally so I've issued a pull request. On Wednesday, 30 July 2014 09:40:15 UTC+1, Stephen McDonald wrote: > > Unfortunately I had no idea you were trying to get the syntax tests to > pass, otherwise we would have had a different discussion. > > You'll actually see that the syntax tests currently pass fine as the > travisci config contains explicit versions of pyflakes and pep8 scripts to > be installed - if you use different versions of these you may get different > results. > > Yes the syntax tests are annoyingly brutal, but take a look at the code > base - it's subsequently quite clean. I don't see a good reason to remove > them. > > > > > On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Emlyn Clay <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> Hello Mezzanites, >> >> Stephen (McDonald) has recently closed a pull request I made containing >> PEP8 fixes <https://github.com/stephenmcd/cartridge/pull/204> to the >> Cartridge app, the reason was that the changes I made were ugly and I >> wholeheartedly agree with the decision; "practicality beats purity.", >> that's straight forward Zen of Python. The question remains about what to >> do; the tests (shop/tests.py) checks the syntax of the files for PEP8 >> correctness and it is on the basis of those tests whether the application >> is considered a pass or a fail. The issue, is that because PEP8 syntax >> checks are part of the tests and the tests will always complain with syntax >> issues such as these so TravisCI will also complain leaving a nasty "Fail" >> stamp on builds that are perhaps functionally fine but not syntactically >> pure. I argue that the tests should only fail on functional regressions and >> warn on syntax issues. >> >> The options as far as I see are: >> >> 1. Refactoring the tests into one `tests.py` that tests for >> functional regressions and a second `tests_syntax.py` that tests for >> style >> and syntax issues. >> 2. Many of the ugly corrections were due to max line length so >> perhaps we relax the max line length to say 100 chars using >> --max-length-lines=100 >> <http://pep8.readthedocs.org/en/latest/intro.html> in the PEP8 >> checker call. >> 3. Ignore it. >> >> Your thoughts? >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Mezzanine Users" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected] <javascript:>. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > > > -- > Stephen McDonald > http://jupo.org > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Mezzanine Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
