Skip to content

Conversation

Will-Hellinger
Copy link

Someone will need to double check this LOL

  • Migrate to ruff
  • Migrate to uv for docker image
  • Fix csh_ldap not working
  • Optimizations via small caches

Copy link
Collaborator

@mxmeinhold mxmeinhold left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

took a look through, though I found it hard to read through all the formatting. Glancing through commits, seemed like there wasn't much in code changes, more in deps and CI?

Have a couple comments

- name: Lint with ruff
run: |
pylint packet/routes packet
ruff check packet
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looking at the ruff FAQ, seems like they're more confident in how well it can replace pylint than a few years ago, but it also discuss that they can be complimentary. Would it make sense to use ruff locally for anyone using it for commit hooks, and pylint in CI for completeness

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It wouldn't hurt, I just wanted to avoid any complications 2 linting systems could possibly bring.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think they can be tuned to work pretty well together, the pylint project uses both

@Will-Hellinger Will-Hellinger marked this pull request as draft September 23, 2025 19:28
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 this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants