Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-operators][osops][tools-generic] Coding Standards/Coding Linters for tools-generic

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 12:56 PM, JJ Asghar wrote: > Yep, that's the can o'worms I was talking about. I was thinking that we > could just steal this .rubocop.yml[1], as it's a "sane" default for us > at Chef. If you take a look at it you'll see its pretty simple which is > what

Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-operators][osops][tools-generic] Coding Standards/Coding Linters for tools-generic

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 11/16/15 7:43 PM, Clayton O'Neill wrote: > I think it’s a good idea. I think scripts and such that don’t pass the > listing tools can go into the contrib repos and if they get cleaned up > then they can move over to the regular ones. Yep!

[Openstack-operators] [openstack-operators][osops][tools-generic] Coding Standards/Coding Linters for tools-generic

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 NOTE: I get what I'm about to propose will open a HUGE can of worms, but we need it, so I'll start the conversation. We had some initial discussion and thoughts on coding standards when we first started this project. It got shot down, but not

Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-operators][osops][tools-generic] Coding Standards/Coding Linters for tools-generic

I think it’s a good idea. I think scripts and such that don’t pass the listing tools can go into the contrib repos and if they get cleaned up then they can move over to the regular ones. I don’t actually like some of the PEP8 and bashate rules, but I’d rather have a consistent style than have