Replaced textwrap package with custom implementation #3933
Merged
Conversation
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
The motivation was that it had previously caused build failures, so we want to remove it and simplify the dependency tree. Code is cheaper than dependencies. |
Totally fair, that's good context to have thanks. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Resolves: #2850
Removes
textwrappackage in favour of custom implementation.Personally, I'm not convinced this is better than just using
textwrapand removing the terminal width check:Issues
There are some slight differences in output between this solution and
textwrap's more sophisticated solution. This has caused some minor differences with some of the snapshots. I've reviewed and updated them but I want to draw attention to it.Question: are we OK with these differences?