understand, thank you very much
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Yuriy Taraday yorik@gmail.com wrote:
Hello.
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 6:47 AM, ZhiQiang Fan aji.zq...@gmail.comwrote:
I noticed that in openstack-dev/hacking project, there is very little
test code, is there any
Hi Zhi Qiang,
for i.e. the hacking rule h233 in hacking looks not so robust,
https://github.com/openstack-dev/hacking/blob/master/hacking/core.py#L345
it cannot detect
\bprint$
\bprint xxx, (\s+
It currently detects both as a violation of the rule, which is IMHO
correct. Please note that
Hi, Dirk
If a line just with single print (which means a function name) does
nothing, I think it should be removed,
print$ cannot be detected by \bprint\s+[^\(]
import re
print re.search(r\bprint\s+[^\(], print)
None
print re.search(r\bprint(?:$|\s+[^\(]), print)
_sre.SRE_Match object at
Hi,
I noticed that in openstack-dev/hacking project, there is very little test
code, is there any particular reason why it is in such situation?
since hacking module is depended by almost all openstack projects, I think
hacking code should be tested well at least
for i.e. the hacking rule h233
Hello.
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 6:47 AM, ZhiQiang Fan aji.zq...@gmail.com wrote:
I noticed that in openstack-dev/hacking project, there is very little test
code, is there any particular reason why it is in such situation?
Yes, there is. Every rule have a docstring that not only provides
