8000 Travis CI: Find Python 3 syntax errors and undefined names by cclauss · Pull Request #10279 · arangodb/arangodb · GitHub
[go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to content

Travis CI: Find Python 3 syntax errors and undefined names #10279

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Travis CI: Find Python 3 syntax errors and undefined names #10279

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

cclauss
Copy link
@cclauss cclauss commented Oct 18, 2019

Related to #10278 and @dothebart request for assistance at #10274 (comment)

1     E902 TokenError: EOF in multi-line statement
181   E999 SyntaxError: invalid syntax
6     F632 use ==/!= to compare str, bytes, and int literals
11    F633 use of >> is invalid with print function
2     F723 syntax error in type comment 'Dict[option, Dict[col_fam, value]] X 2 ->'
121   F821 undefined name 'execfile'
322

Pull Request Guidelines

Pull requests are an essential collaborative tool for modern software development.

The below list is intended to help you figure out whether your code is ready to be reviewed
and merged into ArangoDB. The overarching goal is to:

  • Reduce the amount of recurring defects
  • Reduce the impact to the other developer’s time and energy spent on defects in your code
  • Increase the overall autonomy and productivity of individual developers

Acceptance Checklist

The below list is not exhaustive, think thoroughly whether the provided information is sufficient.
Remove options that do not apply

Scope & Purpose

(Can you describe what functional change your PR is trying to effect?)

  • Bug-Fix for devel-branch (i.e. no need for backports?)
  • Bug-Fix for a released version (did you remember to port this to all relevant release branches?)
  • Strictly new functionality (i.e. a new feature / new option, no need for porting)
  • The behavior in this PR can be (and was) manually tested (support / qa / customers can test it)
  • The behavior change can be verified via automatic tests

Related Information

(Please reference tickets / specification etc )

  • There is a GitHub Issue reported by a Community User:
  • There is an internal planning ticket:
  • There is a JIRA Ticket number (In case a customer was affected / involved):
  • There is a design document:

Testing & Verification

(Please pick either of the following options)

This change is a trivial rework / code cleanup without any test coverage.

(or)

This change is already covered by existing tests, such as (please describe tests).

(or)

This PR adds tests that were used to verify all changes:

  • Added Regression Tests (Only for bug-fixes)
  • Added new C++ Unit Tests (Either GoogleTest or Catch-Test)
    • Did you add tests for a new RestHandler subclass ?
    • Did you add new mocks of underlying code layers to be able to verify your functionality ?
    • ...
  • Added new integration tests (i.e. in shell_server / shell_server_aql)
  • Added new resilience tests (only if the feature is impacted by failovers)

Additionally:

  • There are tests in an external testing repository (i.e. node-resilience tests, chaos tests)
  • I ensured this code runs with ASan / TSan or other static verification tools

(Include link to Jenkins run etc)

Think about whether the new code you added is modular enough to be
easily testable by unit tests written with GTest / Catch. It is not good if your feature is so interconnected
that it prevents other people from writing their own unit gests. It should be possible
to use your code in future without extensively mocking your classes.
A bad example that required some extensive effort would be the storage engine API.

Documentation

All new Features should be accompanied by corresponding documentation.
Bugs and features should furthermore be documented in the changelog so that
developers and users have a concise overview.

  • Added a Changelog Entry (referencing the corresponding public or internal issue number)
  • Added entry to Release Notes
  • Added a new section in the Manual
  • Added a new section in the http API
  • Added Swagger examples for the http API

CLA Note

Please note that for legal reasons we require you to sign the Contributor Agreement
before we can accept your pull requests.

@cclauss
Travis CI: Find Python 3 syntax errors and undefined names
72b1e37 
Related to arangodb#10278 and the request for assistance at arangodb#10274 (comment)
```
1     E902 TokenError: EOF in multi-line statement
181   E999 SyntaxError: invalid syntax
6     F632 use ==/!= to compare str, bytes, and int literals
11    F633 use of >> is invalid with print function
2     F723 syntax error in type comment 'Dict[option, Dict[col_fam, value]] X 2 ->'
121   F821 undefined name 'execfile'
322
```
@cclauss
Copy link
Author
cclauss commented Oct 18, 2019

@ObiWahn Perhaps you could pull these tests into #10209

@dothebart dothebart self-requested a review October 18, 2019 09:26
@dothebart
Copy link
Contributor

I'm sorry I have to ask for a CLA ( https://www.arangodb.com/documents/cla.pdf ) in order to get this PR merged.

@mpoeter
Copy link
Contributor
mpoeter commented Feb 2, 2021

Closing as obsolete (we are not testing on Travis CI anymore - #12675).

@mpoeter mpoeter closed this Feb 2, 2021
cclauss added a commit to cclauss/arangodb that referenced this pull request Feb 2, 2021
@cclauss
GitHub Action to lint Python code
ac34cbe 
Related to arangodb#10279
@cclauss cclauss mentioned this pull request Feb 2, 2021
Closed
25 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@dothebart dothebart dothebart approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@cclauss @dothebart @mpoeter
0