Closed
Conversation
Owner
|
Merge was to complicated - fixed in #273 thanks for your support! |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This pull request has the project switch to using ruff instead of pyflakes and handles the slight differences it has.
I was considering moving this into another pull request to follow this one, but I also switched to using ruff's integrated version of isort as well.
They have a quite compelling advertisement of sorts of why you should use their system in their readme, but in the end I am suggesting to switch to ruff because it's got nearly all the warnings flake8 does but also has autofix support, and it's way faster.
astral-sh/ruff#970 is tracking pyflakes re-implementation progress, and using ruff opens the door to enabling even more checks in the future with almost no performance loss for doing so.