-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 239
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
Consistency: apply codestyle formatting to docstring code snippets #1220
Consistency: apply codestyle formatting to docstring code snippets #1220
Conversation
…nippets within docstrings
…avoid adjusting the standard use of double-quotes in triple-quoted docstrings)
…ception (to avoid adjusting the standard use of double-quotes in triple-quoted docstrings)
thanks for the effort! |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
OK, this is sqla-tester setting up my work on behalf of CaselIT to try to get revision cd65a45 of this pull request into gerrit so we can run tests and reviews and stuff
New Gerrit review created for change cd65a45: https://gerrit.sqlalchemy.org/c/sqlalchemy/alembic/+/4566 |
Federico Caselli (CaselIT) wrote: only formatting of code inside the docs. should be good to go once it passes the pipeline View this in Gerrit at https://gerrit.sqlalchemy.org/c/sqlalchemy/alembic/+/4566 |
judging by the Thanks for updating it |
You're welcome, and thanks - funny the things we notice and the things we don't :) |
(if that was ambiguous: I didn't mean that there is anything else hidden in the changes - I was only surprised that I noticed the missing object reference and yet didn't notice the |
Gerrit review https://gerrit.sqlalchemy.org/c/sqlalchemy/alembic/+/4566 has been merged. Congratulations! :) |
Thank you, @CaselIT! |
Thanks you for doing most of the work! |
I'm fairly sure that you didn't intend this meaning, but the word 'most' made me double-check.. and I found that I missed a snippet within (and, a smaller detail than that: one of the Is that worth a follow-up pull request? |
sorry if I gave you that impression, with most I just meant that I though I added a changelog but apparently not, so I didn't do much here at all here :)
Sure, if you have time it would be appreciated |
It's OK - I didn't read it that way, although am glad that it was worth checking. It would have been better for me to have noticed it myself before the first PR, of course!
Great - yep, I'll provide a pull request in a few moments. |
… docstrings ### Description Follow-up / completion of #1220. That change updated a number of docstrings within the codebase to use standardised `black` code formatting, but a couple of locations had been missed. ### Checklist This pull request is: - [x] A documentation / typographical error fix - Good to go, no issue or tests are needed Closes: #1228 Pull-request: #1228 Pull-request-sha: f5696b9 Change-Id: I5d935b036d6f4e11eb5c229f9982db587d67ae24
Description
This is a pedantic/consistency follow-up from #1219: that change applied some
black
formatting to two code snippets, and this change applies that formatting to the remaining snippets in the codebase.For each snippet, I extracted the code and applied formatting using
black
v23.1.0, then placed the results back into the source.In one case there was an associated 'output' block, and in that case I re-ran the snippet code to update the results of that output too (this included a change-in-output thanks to a bugfix since the snippet was written, by the looks of it).
Checklist
This pull request is: