You can turn off lots of the "refactor recommendation" checks. I've been running pylint across neutron and it's uncovered half a dozen legitimate bugs so far - and that's with many tests still disabled.
I agree that the defaults are too noisy, but its about the only tool that does linting across files - pep8 for example only looks at the current file (and not even the parse tree). On 4 Oct 2014 03:22, "Doug Hellmann" <d...@doughellmann.com> wrote: > > On Oct 3, 2014, at 1:09 PM, Neal, Phil <phil.n...@hp.com> wrote: > > >> From: Dina Belova [mailto:dbel...@mirantis.com] > >> On Friday, October 03, 2014 2:53 AM > >> > >> Igor, > >> > >> Personally this idea looks really nice to me, as this will help to avoid > >> strange code being merged and not found via reviewing process. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Dina > >> > >> On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Igor Degtiarov > >> <idegtia...@mirantis.com> wrote: > >> Hi folks! > >> > >> I try too guess do we need in ceilometer checking new patches for > >> critical errors with pylint? > >> > >> As far as I know Nova and Sahara and others have such check. Actually > >> it is not checking of all project but comparing of the number of > >> errors without new patch and with it, and if diff is more then 0 then > >> patch are not taken. > > > > Looking a bit deeper it seems that Nova struggled with false positives > and resorted to https://review.openstack.org/#/c/28754/ , which layers > some historical checking of git on top of pylint's tendency to check only > the latest commit. I can't say I'm too deeply versed in the code, but it's > enough to make me wonder if we want to go that direction and avoid the > issues altogether? > > I haven’t looked at it in a while, but I’ve never been particularly > excited by pylint. It’s extremely picky, encourages enforcing some > questionable rules (arbitrary limits on variable name length?), and repots > a lot of false positives. That combination tends to result in making > writing software annoying without helping with quality in any real way. > > Doug > > > > >> > >> I have taken as pattern Sahara's solution and proposed a patch for > >> ceilometer: > >> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/125906/ > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Igor Degtiarov > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> OpenStack-dev mailing list > >> OpenStackemail@example.com > >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Best regards, > >> Dina Belova > >> Software Engineer > >> Mirantis Inc. > > _______________________________________________ > > OpenStack-dev mailing list > > OpenStackfirstname.lastname@example.org > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStackemail@example.com > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStackfirstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev