Respect docstring-min-length in docparams extension #10104
Conversation
Pierre-Sassoulas
added
the
False Negative 🦋
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #10104 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 95.80% 95.80% -0.01%
==========================================
Files 174 174
Lines 18976 18984 +8
==========================================
+ Hits 18180 18187 +7
- Misses 796 797 +1
|
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank you for opening a PR ! Would you mind adding functional tests (https://github.com/pylint-dev/pylint/tree/main/tests/functional/ext/docparams) and a changelog (https://github.com/pylint-dev/pylint/tree/main/doc/whatsnew/fragments) for this please ?
|
Don't mind the fail of the CI this is due to python/cpython#125415 in 3.13.1 we're going to be able to rebase on main once it's fixed. |
berkersal
force-pushed
the
main
branch
5 times, most recently
from
b794ef3 to
c8d7ec9
Compare
|
Sorry for a lot of pushes 😅 |
|
Something not related to my changes is giving an error on pre-commit checks |
|
Sorry about that it's going to be fixed in #10165 |
Even though visit_functiondef is checking for docstring-min-length, it is not enough. This commit fixes the issue by adding the same check to visit_raise, visit_return and visit_yield
|
🤖 According to the primer, this change has no effect on the checked open source code. 🤖🎉 This comment was generated for commit 51f61ab |
| # skip functions smaller than 'docstring-min-length' | ||
| if self._is_shorter_than_min_length(node): | ||
| return |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not sure it's possible to cover this, do return nodes ever have a docstring attached ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure if I understand the problem 😅
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Those two lines are not covered by tests, and it's in a visit_return function, so I suppose it's not covered because it's impossible to ever reach this code (return node don't have docstrings, right ?)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure what return node is but there is a part in docstrings that documents what the function is returning
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Return node would be obtained from something like return 4, once parsed you'll get an ast's Return node:
Parsing:
print(ast.dump(ast.parse('return 4')))Resut:
Module(body=[Return(value=Constant(value=4))])
(Which then become an astroid return node in pylint, before we use the visitor pattern to do something with it)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I assume the extension is deciding the return part of the docstring from -> int part of the function definition. Then it wouldn't care about the return node
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmm, would it be possible to create a functional test for it then ? (I.e. with a docstring too small and return type information that we don't need to analyse because the docstring is too small if I understood correctly)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It seems it's not covering line 345 according to codecov ? (https://app.codecov.io/gh/pylint-dev/pylint/pull/10104?src=pr&el=tree&filepath=pylint%2Fextensions%2Fdocparams.py&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=pylint-dev#61228d78a7c97a0961324b4e7e6eb65e-R345)
Even though visit_functiondef is checking for docstring-min-length, it is not enough. This commit fixes the issue by adding the same check to visit_raise, visit_return and visit_yield
If there is a better way of implementing this, please go forward. I am just providing a working fix to this problem.
Type of Changes
Description
Refs #XXXX
Closes #XXXX