8000 Using black for code style · Issue #14 · scikit-learn-contrib/scikit-learn-extra · GitHub
[go: up one dir, main page]

Skip to content

Using black for code style #14

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.

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

Closed
rth opened this issue Jun 4, 2019 · 7 comments · Fixed by #15
Closed

Using black for code style #14

rth opened this issue Jun 4, 2019 · 7 comments · Fixed by #15

Comments

@rth
Copy link
Contributor
rth commented Jun 4, 2019

Since this is a fairly new project I would suggest using black (https://github.com/python/black) for code formatting here (and enforcing it for new PRs).

Black is getting fairly mainstream and this could be a way to evaluate it before using in scikit-learn (cf scikit-learn/scikit-learn#11336 (comment) and following discussion).

Any objections?

@chkoar
Copy link
Member
chkoar commented Jun 4, 2019

Agree. black --check . in CIs should do the trick for enforcing the black style code format.

@amueller
Copy link
Member
amueller commented Jun 4, 2019

haven't tried it but worth a shot?

@liufsd
Copy link
liufsd commented Jun 5, 2019

@rth 👍

@adrinjalali
Copy link
Member
adrinjalali commented Jun 5, 2019 via email

@jnothman
Copy link
Member
jnothman commented Jun 5, 2019 via email

@adrinjalali
Copy link
Member
adrinjalali commented Jun 5, 2019 via email

@rth
Copy link
Contributor Author
rth commented Jun 5, 2019

Made the PR in #15

I have used it in a few other projects and it takes some time to get used to (mostly to stop caring about formatting), after which the experience is quite positive.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

6 participants
0