After #196 is merged it will be easy to add a job to run black --check for example and block merging if it fails. This will make for a future-proof solution to #172 and #174.
Also, #196 is merged now ;)
Seems to have been discussed in #43 with a consensus on black.
Black is pep8 compliant; in other words valid black code is a strict subset of valid pep8 code.
In that case, I think black is a better option.
If that's the case then let's close #172 ?
We chose 88 as line length in #174. Can we get black within our CI asap? (I don't want to keep saying "please leave a space after this comma" during code reviews :D)
Can we get black within our CI asap? (I don't want to keep saying "please leave a space after this comma" during code reviews :D)
@leotrs
Would using a readymade GitHub Action be ok?
This one seems quite popular.
I have no familiarity with GH Actions. I believe @eulertour has experience there.
This seems really small to warrant a packaged action; it really only needs to run black --check.
I should be able to get this in before the weekend ends.
This actually isn't finished since CI currently only enforces formatting but not linting.
I was hoping that the restyled bot would fix this but it ended up being more annoying than anything. Do we want to add a linter to our CI?
This actually isn't finished since CI currently only enforces formatting but not linting.
This is done by #478 and restyled bot does that work. Closing this issue.
Most helpful comment
If that's the case then let's close #172 ?