Skip to content
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

discard yamllint from armory #1707

Closed
mwartell opened this issue Oct 24, 2022 · 1 comment · Fixed by #1708
Closed

discard yamllint from armory #1707

mwartell opened this issue Oct 24, 2022 · 1 comment · Fixed by #1708
Assignees

Comments

@mwartell
Copy link
Collaborator

In the commit hooks and CI jobs there is a yamllint invocation. I believe that was placed there to guard against silly mistakes in Github Actions, but I think we're past that being an issue with editor support and fewer working on infrastructure. The same goes for environment.yml and mkdocs.yml which are the only other yaml files in the repo. Moreover the current yamllint rejects some utterly valid syntax (e.g. multiline blocks) which requires silly rewriting and lint overrides.

Also, yamllint will not help us when we turn config.json into experiment.yaml, because syntactic validity is the smaller part of having a valid experiment. Better will be to use (for example) hyrda-zen to validate the experiment contents which indirectly validates the yaml syntax. See also #1618.

@mwartell mwartell self-assigned this Oct 24, 2022
@christopherwoodall christopherwoodall linked a pull request Oct 25, 2022 that will close this issue
5 tasks
@davidslater
Copy link
Contributor

I am fine with this. However, for experiment.yaml, I would like to enforce some basic linting (even if we don't do yamllint), to keep spacing consistent and lexical ordering of keys, if nothing else.

We can add that in once we move to yaml in experiments, though.

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

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants