Re: [I] Enable More PyDocStyle Checks [airflow]

2024-02-15 Thread via GitHub
Taragolis commented on issue #10742: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/10742#issuecomment-1947582702 And personally not sure about D107 -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go

Re: [I] Enable More PyDocStyle Checks [airflow]

2024-02-15 Thread via GitHub
rawwar commented on issue #10742: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/10742#issuecomment-1947582616 > I don’t think it is even possible not to combine them if we want to enable all of them. Only problem to create issues with all of them I just raised this PR -

Re: [I] Enable More PyDocStyle Checks [airflow]

2024-02-15 Thread via GitHub
Taragolis commented on issue #10742: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/10742#issuecomment-1947578178 > We could combine several `D*`s if we want in one row. I don't think there is a particular reason why we want to keep them in separate sections. @Taragolis ? I don’t

Re: [I] Enable More PyDocStyle Checks [airflow]

2024-02-15 Thread via GitHub
potiuk commented on issue #10742: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/10742#issuecomment-1947559270 > Issue is that same module have D*s and also E*s. We could combine `D*`'s and `E*s` together as well. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To

Re: [I] Enable More PyDocStyle Checks [airflow]

2024-02-15 Thread via GitHub
rawwar commented on issue #10742: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/10742#issuecomment-1947557987 > We could combine several `D*`s if we want in one row. I don't think there is a particular reason why we want to keep them in separate sections. @Taragolis ? Issue is that

Re: [I] Enable More PyDocStyle Checks [airflow]

2024-02-15 Thread via GitHub
potiuk commented on issue #10742: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/10742#issuecomment-1947556694 We could `D*` if we want. I don't think there is a particular reason why we want to keep them in separate sections. @Taragolis ? -- This is an automated message from the Apache

Re: [I] Enable More PyDocStyle Checks [airflow]

2024-02-15 Thread via GitHub
rawwar commented on issue #10742: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/10742#issuecomment-1947555396 And, list of all issues that we can add to `pyproject.toml`. I did some basic pre-processing. ``` "airflow/__main__.py" = ["D103"] "airflow/api/auth/__init__.py" =

Re: [I] Enable More PyDocStyle Checks [airflow]

2024-02-15 Thread via GitHub
rawwar commented on issue #10742: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/10742#issuecomment-1947553871 > Oh absolutley. Moving it out is just theorethically possible, but we do not want to do it (or at least we have not decided about it yet. I personally think there is a value in

Re: [I] Enable More PyDocStyle Checks [airflow]

2024-02-15 Thread via GitHub
potiuk commented on issue #10742: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/10742#issuecomment-1947550688 > Can we just update it in the current pyproject.toml? I would like to contribute and I'll finish them off one by one Oh absolutley. Moving it out is just theorethically

Re: [I] Enable More PyDocStyle Checks [airflow]

2024-02-15 Thread via GitHub
rawwar commented on issue #10742: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/10742#issuecomment-1947534083 > In theory we could enable all rules [#10742 (comment)](https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/10742#issuecomment-1947242983) but place exclusions into the separate file, e.g.

Re: [I] Enable More PyDocStyle Checks [airflow]

2024-02-15 Thread via GitHub
rawwar commented on issue #10742: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/10742#issuecomment-1947530957 > In theory we could enable all rules [#10742 (comment)](https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/10742#issuecomment-1947242983) but place exclusions into the separate file, e.g.

Re: [I] Enable More PyDocStyle Checks [airflow]

2024-02-15 Thread via GitHub
Taragolis commented on issue #10742: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/10742#issuecomment-1947303063 In theory we could enable all rules https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/10742#issuecomment-1947242983 but place exclusions into the separate file, e.g. in ruff.toml

Re: [I] Enable More PyDocStyle Checks [airflow]

2024-02-15 Thread via GitHub
Taragolis commented on issue #10742: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/10742#issuecomment-1947242983 Just finish calculation other violations of D100-D107 | **Rule** | **Total Errors** | **Uniq Core Modules** | **Uniq Providers Modules** | **Uniq Other Modules** |

Re: [I] Enable More PyDocStyle Checks [airflow]

2024-02-05 Thread via GitHub
ferruzzi commented on issue #10742: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/10742#issuecomment-1928003944 No, holidays came and distracted me, I never finished the changes. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to

Re: [I] Enable More PyDocStyle Checks [airflow]

2024-02-04 Thread via GitHub
eladkal commented on issue #10742: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/10742#issuecomment-1925746468 > As solution for that we might enable D401 by default in ruff and add current files/module which not yet follow D401 into the tool.ruff.per-file-ignores. WDYT? Probably

Re: [I] Enable More PyDocStyle Checks [airflow]

2024-02-04 Thread via GitHub
Taragolis commented on issue #10742: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/10742#issuecomment-1925734979 I guess not yet, at least if I uncomment this line https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/f24a03709eecbda87ed794cee567806e51c3a21f/pyproject.toml#L1276 And run check

Re: [I] Enable More PyDocStyle Checks [airflow]

2024-02-04 Thread via GitHub
eladkal commented on issue #10742: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/10742#issuecomment-1925668562 @ferruzzi was D401 completed? -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the