Conversation
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. 📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know! |
Contributor
☂️ Python Coverage
Overall Coverage
New FilesNo new covered files... Modified Files
|
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
This changes the docstring CI to only check the docstrings of files that were changed within a PR. Also, I simplified it a bit so it only checks for missing docstrings, not specific styling etc.
So now, whenever you change a file, the pre-commit and CI will make you add docstrings throughout the entire file. Hopefully this will allow us to incrementally improve the docstring situation.
Some open questions:
D100, which checks for missing docstrings in public modules, which we don't have anywhere. Do we want to have those? This would certainly make the automatically built API reference look nicer.