Added GitHub Actions python script linter #2850
Conversation
|
Warning Rate limit exceeded@palisadoes has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 10 minutes and 13 seconds before requesting another review. ⌛ How to resolve this issue?After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit. 🚦 How do rate limits work?CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization. Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout. Please see our FAQ for further information. 📒 Files selected for processing (4)
WalkthroughThis pull request introduces comprehensive code quality and style enforcement mechanisms for Python projects. It adds configuration files for various code quality tools like Changes
Sequence DiagramsequenceDiagram
participant PR as Pull Request
participant GA as GitHub Actions
participant Checks as Code Quality Checks
PR->>GA: Trigger workflow
GA->>Checks: Run Python Compliance Job
Checks->>Checks: Checkout Repository
Checks->>Checks: Setup Python 3.11
Checks->>Checks: Install Dependencies
Checks->>Checks: Run Black Formatter
Checks->>Checks: Run Flake8 Linter
Checks->>Checks: Run Pydocstyle
Checks->>Checks: Check Docstrings
Checks->>GA: Report Results
Possibly related PRs
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
Documentation and Community
|
Our Pull Request Approval ProcessThanks for contributing! Testing Your CodeRemember, your PRs won't be reviewed until these criteria are met:
Our policies make our code better. ReviewersDo not assign reviewers. Our Queue Monitors will review your PR and assign them.
Reviewing Your CodeYour reviewer(s) will have the following roles:
CONTRIBUTING.mdRead our CONTRIBUTING.md file. Most importantly:
Other
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 22
🔭 Outside diff range comments (2)
.github/workflows/scripts/biome_disable_check.py (1)
Line range hint
127-142: Include Missing Details in Function DocstringThe docstring for
mainshould include type hints for parameters (if any) and specify the return type, even if it isNone, in accordance with the style guide.Since
maintakes no arguments and returnsNone, you can update the docstring:""" ... Args: - None + None Returns: - None + None ...Alternatively, you may omit the
ArgsandReturnssections if they are not providing additional information..github/workflows/scripts/code_coverage_disable_check.py (1)
Line range hint
138-153: Simplify Docstring formainFunctionThe
mainfunction's docstring includesArgsandReturnssections statingNone. Sincemaindoes not accept parameters or return a value, these sections can be omitted.Simplify the docstring:
"""Execute the script's main functionality. This function serves as the entry point for the script. It performs the following tasks: 1. Validates and retrieves the files or directories to check from command line arguments. 2. Checks files or directories for code coverage disable statements. 3. Provides informative messages based on the analysis. 4. Exits with an error if code coverage disable statements are found. - Args: - None - - Returns: - None - Raises: SystemExit: If an error occurs during execution. """
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (8)
.flake8(1 hunks).github/workflows/pull-request.yml(1 hunks).github/workflows/requirements.txt(1 hunks).github/workflows/scripts/biome_disable_check.py(6 hunks).github/workflows/scripts/check_docstrings.py(1 hunks).github/workflows/scripts/code_coverage_disable_check.py(9 hunks).pydocstyle(1 hunks)pyproject.toml(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 actionlint (1.7.4)
.github/workflows/pull-request.yml
242-242: job "python-compliance" needs job "code-quality-checks" which does not exist in this workflow
(job-needs)
253-253: the runner of "actions/setup-python@v4" action is too old to run on GitHub Actions. update the action's version to fix this issue
(action)
🪛 Ruff (0.8.2)
.github/workflows/scripts/code_coverage_disable_check.py
87-87: Trailing comma missing
Add trailing comma
(COM812)
101-101: Trailing comma missing
Add trailing comma
(COM812)
.github/workflows/scripts/biome_disable_check.py
37-37: Trailing comma missing
Add trailing comma
(COM812)
75-75: Trailing comma missing
Add trailing comma
(COM812)
.github/workflows/scripts/check_docstrings.py
14-14: Missing return type annotation for public function validate_docstring
(ANN201)
14-14: Missing type annotation for function argument file_path
(ANN001)
30-30: Unnecessary open mode parameters
Remove open mode parameters
(UP015)
33-33: Do not catch blind exception: Exception
(BLE001)
53-54: Use a single if statement instead of nested if statements
(SIM102)
67-67: Trailing comma missing
Add trailing comma
(COM812)
76-76: Missing return type annotation for public function ignore_function
(ANN201)
76-76: Missing type annotation for function argument function
(ANN001)
76-76: Missing type annotation for function argument file_path
(ANN001)
100-100: match_arguments_to_docstring is too complex (11 > 10)
(C901)
100-100: Missing return type annotation for public function match_arguments_to_docstring
(ANN201)
100-100: Missing type annotation for function argument function
(ANN001)
100-100: Missing type annotation for function argument docstring
(ANN001)
100-100: Missing type annotation for function argument line_number
(ANN001)
129-129: Trailing comma missing
Add trailing comma
(COM812)
138-138: Loop control variable argument_function not used within loop body
(B007)
152-152: Trailing comma missing
Add trailing comma
(COM812)
162-162: Loop control variable argument_docstring not used within loop body
(B007)
176-176: Trailing comma missing
Add trailing comma
(COM812)
187-187: Missing return type annotation for public function function_has_decorator
(ANN201)
187-187: Missing type annotation for function argument start
(ANN001)
187-187: Missing type annotation for function argument lines
(ANN001)
209-209: Missing return type annotation for public function decorator_in_docstring_exception_list
(ANN201)
209-209: Missing type annotation for function argument item
(ANN001)
240-240: Missing return type annotation for public function extract_function_arguments
(ANN201)
240-240: Missing type annotation for function argument start
(ANN001)
240-240: Missing type annotation for function argument lines
(ANN001)
262-262: Unnecessary elif after continue statement
Remove unnecessary elif
(RET507)
283-283: Unnecessary assignment to result before return statement
Remove unnecessary assignment
(RET504)
286-286: extract_docstring is too complex (12 > 10)
(C901)
286-286: Missing return type annotation for public function extract_docstring
(ANN201)
286-286: Missing type annotation for function argument func_name
(ANN001)
286-286: Missing type annotation for function argument line_number
(ANN001)
286-286: Missing type annotation for function argument lines
(ANN001)
303-303: Trailing comma missing
Add trailing comma
(COM812)
339-339: Trailing comma missing
Add trailing comma
(COM812)
356-356: Do not catch blind exception: Exception
(BLE001)
364-364: Trailing comma missing
Add trailing comma
(COM812)
369-369: Trailing comma missing
Add trailing comma
(COM812)
376-376: Trailing comma missing
Add trailing comma
(COM812)
386-386: Trailing comma missing
Add trailing comma
(COM812)
399-399: Trailing comma missing
Add trailing comma
(COM812)
410-410: Trailing comma missing
Add trailing comma
(COM812)
421-421: Unnecessary assignment to result before return statement
Remove unnecessary assignment
(RET504)
424-424: Missing return type annotation for public function evaluate_docstring_description
(ANN201)
424-424: Missing type annotation for function argument func_name
(ANN001)
424-424: Missing type annotation for function argument docstring_start
(ANN001)
424-424: Missing type annotation for function argument parser
(ANN001)
451-451: Trailing comma missing
Add trailing comma
(COM812)
464-464: Trailing comma missing
Add trailing comma
(COM812)
470-470: Missing return type annotation for public function evaluate_docstring_args
(ANN201)
470-470: Missing type annotation for function argument func_name
(ANN001)
470-470: Missing type annotation for function argument docstring_start
(ANN001)
470-470: Missing type annotation for function argument docstring
(ANN001)
470-470: Missing type annotation for function argument parser
(ANN001)
485-485: Trailing comma missing
Add trailing comma
(COM812)
493-493: Unnecessary else after return statement
Remove unnecessary else
(RET505)
503-503: Trailing comma missing
Add trailing comma
(COM812)
515-515: Trailing comma missing
Add trailing comma
(COM812)
530-530: Trailing comma missing
Add trailing comma
(COM812)
541-541: Trailing comma missing
Add trailing comma
(COM812)
550-550: Unnecessary assignment to result before return statement
Remove unnecessary assignment
(RET504)
553-553: Missing return type annotation for public function evaluate_docstring_returns
(ANN201)
553-553: Missing type annotation for function argument func_name
(ANN001)
553-553: Missing type annotation for function argument docstring_start
(ANN001)
553-553: Missing type annotation for function argument docstring
(ANN001)
553-553: Missing type annotation for function argument parser
(ANN001)
579-579: Trailing comma missing
Add trailing comma
(COM812)
598-598: Trailing comma missing
Add trailing comma
(COM812)
610-610: Trailing comma missing
Add trailing comma
(COM812)
623-623: Trailing comma missing
Add trailing comma
(COM812)
639-639: Trailing comma missing
Add trailing comma
(COM812)
651-651: Trailing comma missing
Add trailing comma
(COM812)
658-658: Missing return type annotation for public function is_docstring_delimiter
(ANN201)
658-658: Missing type annotation for function argument line
(ANN001)
670-670: Trailing comma missing
Add trailing comma
(COM812)
672-672: Unnecessary assignment to result before return statement
Remove unnecessary assignment
(RET504)
675-675: Missing return type annotation for public function check_directory
(ANN201)
675-675: Missing type annotation for function argument directory
(ANN001)
675-675: Missing type annotation for function argument exclude_dirs
(ANN001)
715-715: Missing return type annotation for public function main
Add return type annotation: None
(ANN201)
760-760: Trailing comma missing
Add trailing comma
(COM812)
766-766: Trailing comma missing
Add trailing comma
(COM812)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (1)
- GitHub Check: Analyse Code With CodeQL (typescript)
🔇 Additional comments (3)
.github/workflows/scripts/biome_disable_check.py (1)
36-38: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)Add Trailing Comma in Regular Expression Compilation
Consistently using trailing commas in multiline data structures enhances readability.
Add a trailing comma in the
biome_ignore_patterncompilation:biome_ignore_pattern = re.compile( r"//\s*biome-ignore.*$", re.IGNORECASE | re.MULTILINE + )Likely invalid or redundant comment.
🧰 Tools
🪛 Ruff (0.8.2)
37-37: Trailing comma missing
Add trailing comma
(COM812)
.flake8 (1)
2-2: 🛠️ Refactor suggestionReview ignored error codes.
Some ignored errors might hide potential issues:
- E722: Disabling bare 'except' checks could hide error handling issues
- F401: Ignoring unused imports reduces code cleanliness
Consider keeping these checks enabled and fixing the underlying issues instead.
pyproject.toml (1)
1-4: LGTM! Well-documented Black configuration.The configuration follows PEP 8 recommendations with a 79-character line length, and the comment clearly explains the file's purpose.
| return result | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| def match_arguments_to_docstring(function, docstring, line_number): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Refactor match_arguments_to_docstring to Reduce Complexity
The function match_arguments_to_docstring has a cyclomatic complexity of 11, which exceeds the recommended maximum of 10. High complexity can make the code harder to understand and maintain.
Consider refactoring the function by breaking it into smaller helper functions or simplifying the logic to reduce complexity.
🧰 Tools
🪛 Ruff (0.8.2)
100-100: match_arguments_to_docstring is too complex (11 > 10)
(C901)
100-100: Missing return type annotation for public function match_arguments_to_docstring
(ANN201)
100-100: Missing type annotation for function argument function
(ANN001)
100-100: Missing type annotation for function argument docstring
(ANN001)
100-100: Missing type annotation for function argument line_number
(ANN001)
| for argument_function in arguments_function: | ||
| # Track whether the argument is defined |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Unused Loop Variable argument_function
In the loop starting at line 138, the loop variable argument_function is not used within the loop body. Unused variables can lead to confusion.
If the variable is not needed, consider using an underscore _ as a placeholder:
-for argument_function in arguments_function:
+for _ in arguments_function:📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| for argument_function in arguments_function: | |
| # Track whether the argument is defined | |
| for _ in arguments_function: | |
| # Track whether the argument is defined |
🧰 Tools
🪛 Ruff (0.8.2)
138-138: Loop control variable argument_function not used within loop body
(B007)
| return all_violations | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| def main(): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Add Return Type Annotation to Function main
The function main is missing a return type annotation. Even if the function does not return a value, it's good practice to indicate this explicitly.
Apply this diff:
-def main():
+def main() -> None:📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| def main(): | |
| def main() -> None: |
🧰 Tools
🪛 Ruff (0.8.2)
715-715: Missing return type annotation for public function main
Add return type annotation: None
(ANN201)
| return result | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| def evaluate_docstring_description(func_name, docstring_start, parser): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Add Type Annotations to Function evaluate_docstring_description
The function evaluate_docstring_description lacks type annotations for its parameters and return type.
Apply this diff:
-def evaluate_docstring_description(func_name, docstring_start, parser):
+from typing import List
+def evaluate_docstring_description(func_name: str, docstring_start: int, parser) -> List[Violation]:Specify the appropriate type for parser if possible.
Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
🧰 Tools
🪛 Ruff (0.8.2)
424-424: Missing return type annotation for public function evaluate_docstring_description
(ANN201)
424-424: Missing type annotation for function argument func_name
(ANN001)
424-424: Missing type annotation for function argument docstring_start
(ANN001)
424-424: Missing type annotation for function argument parser
(ANN001)
| - name: Run Black Formatter Check | ||
| run: | | ||
| source venv/bin/activate | ||
| black --check . | ||
|
|
||
| - name: Run Flake8 Linter | ||
| run: | | ||
| source venv/bin/activate | ||
| flake8 --docstring-convention google --ignore E402,E722,E203,F401,W503 .github | ||
|
|
||
| - name: Run pydocstyle | ||
| run: | | ||
| source venv/bin/activate | ||
| pydocstyle --convention=google --add-ignore=D415,D205 .github | ||
|
|
||
| - name: Run docstring compliance check | ||
| run: | | ||
| source venv/bin/activate | ||
| python .github/workflows/scripts/check_docstrings.py --directories .github |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Refactor repeated virtual environment activation.
The virtual environment activation is repeated in multiple steps. Consider using a composite action or job outputs to reduce duplication.
- name: Set up Python environment
id: setup
run: |
python3 -m venv venv
echo "VENV_PATH=$(pwd)/venv" >> $GITHUB_OUTPUT
- name: Run Checks
run: |
source ${{ steps.setup.outputs.VENV_PATH }}/bin/activate
black --check .
flake8 --docstring-convention google --ignore E402,E722,E203,F401,W503 .github
pydocstyle --convention=google --add-ignore=D415,D205 .github
python .github/workflows/scripts/check_docstrings.py --directories .github
Our Pull Request Approval ProcessThanks for contributing! Testing Your CodeRemember, your PRs won't be reviewed until these criteria are met:
Our policies make our code better. ReviewersDo not assign reviewers. Our Queue Monitors will review your PR and assign them.
Reviewing Your CodeYour reviewer(s) will have the following roles:
CONTRIBUTING.mdRead our CONTRIBUTING.md file. Most importantly:
Other
|
Our Pull Request Approval ProcessThanks for contributing! Testing Your CodeRemember, your PRs won't be reviewed until these criteria are met:
Our policies make our code better. ReviewersDo not assign reviewers. Our Queue Monitors will review your PR and assign them.
Reviewing Your CodeYour reviewer(s) will have the following roles:
CONTRIBUTING.mdRead our CONTRIBUTING.md file. Most importantly:
Other
|
8a5b43e
into
PalisadoesFoundation:develop-postgres
* Added GitHub Actions python script linter * Fixed reference * Linted
What kind of change does this PR introduce?
Added GitHub Actions python script linter
Issue Number:
-N/A
Snapshots/Videos:
-N/A
If relevant, did you update the documentation?
-N/A
Summary
We need this to ensure standardization in our supporting scripts
Does this PR introduce a breaking change?
Other information
Have you read the contributing guide?
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Documentation
flake8,pydocstyle, and Black code formatterChores