Isort: Sort statements by package name, ignore ‘import’ vs ‘from … import’

[benf-wspdigital]

A sensible ordering for import statements is alphanumerically by the package name. This should ignore whether the statement is ‘import’ or ‘from … import’.

Currently, ISort insists on separating ‘import’ versus ‘from … import’, resulting in statements that jumble the sequence of package names:

import apidiscing
import euismod
from dolor import consecteur
from ex import metus

Instead, ISort should order these statements by the package name:

import apidiscing
from dolor import consecteur
import euismod
from ex import metus

There does not seem to be any combination of ISort settings that will obey this sequence.

[ghost]

I think the default behavior is correct and usually the preferred one.

@timothycrosley do you think it's a possible candidate for enhancement to enable sorting _only_ by the package name? Possibly via some cmd line flag?

[benspaulding]

Can you accomplish this force_sort_within_sections? If that does not work maybe you would also need force_alphabetical_sort. (isort settings wiki page)

$ isort --help
  ...
  -fas, --force-alphabetical-sort
                        Force all imports to be sorted as a single section
  -fass, --force-alphabetical-sort-within-sections
                        Force all imports to be sorted alphabetically within a
                        section
  ...
  -fss, --force-sort-within-sections
                        Force imports to be sorted by module, independent of
                        import_type
  ...

[bignose-debian]

@benspaulding, the “sort by package name” example shown:

import apidiscing
from dolor import consecteur
import euismod
from ex import metus

Using the --force-sort-within-sections option retains the desired ordering. From the option description:

Force imports to be sorted by module, independent of import_type

[bignose-debian]

@timothycrosley timothycrosley added the enhancement label 14 hours ago
@timothycrosley timothycrosley closed this 14 hours ago
@timothycrosley timothycrosley added the question label 14 hours ago

Adding the “enhancement” label makes sense, this is a request for enhancement.

What are we to understand from closing this request, without an implementation of the enhancement?

[timothycrosley]

Hi @bignose-debian,

I've been trying to go through and categorize issues, and closing any that I thought where complete. When I saw your message above that --force-sort-within-sections retained the desired ordering I read that as the desired feature was already implemented with that flag and thus it was an enhancement request that turned into a question that had since been answered. Is my understanding of the issue incorrect?

Thanks!

~Timothy

[bignose-debian]

When I saw your message above that --force-sort-within-sections retained the desired ordering I read that as the desired feature was already implemented with that flag […]

You're quite right, this request is already met by that option. This issue can be closed (and IMO the “question” label removed), sorry for the noise.

[timothycrosley]

Hi @bignose-debian,

No worries! Thank you for the confirmation!
The question label is only there so I can filter through any areas of confusion and make a comprehensive FAQ document in the future.

Thanks!

~Timothy