add support for sphinx-style parameters to D417 #595
Conversation
|
Can I get a maintainer to approve the workflow to run the CI checks? Thanks! |
|
Anything holding this up? Seems to have been open for a while. Would be great to get this feature in. |
Not meant to be a criticism in any way. Not sure why I got a thumbs down for this comment. I'd just find this feature useful, that's all. |
|
@benji-york, LGTM, but I can't approve or merge anymore despite #575. Please be patient @samj1912 will get to it at some point :) |
| @@ -35,6 +35,7 @@ New Features | |||
| * Add support for `property_decorators` config to ignore D401. | |||
| * Add support for Python 3.10 (#554). | |||
| * Replace D10X errors with D419 if docstring exists but is empty (#559). | |||
| * Add support for Sphinx-style parameter descriptions to D417. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@benji-york could you please move this to the latest version?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@benji-york any objections if I have a go at updating this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@benji-york any objections if I have a go at updating this?
That'd be great, @tomghc!
(Sorry, I let this fall off my radar. If I can be of any service, let me know.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@benji-york Hey, I was looking to help finish updating this to the current version so it could be pushed. Is there any way I could aid in development?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm happy for anyone to do anything on this. I'm not sure what @samj1912 means above by "move this to the latest version". Perhaps rebase?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I kicked off an automated rebase, but the workflows are awaiting maintainer approval.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The automated rebase was successful. All tests passed. Now the review status has been reset, so this needs another review by a maintainer and if still acceptable (which it should be because nothing has changed), it needs merging by a maintainer.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sounds great! Apologies for any inconvenience that I may have caused. I appreciate the work you put in!
benji-york
force-pushed
the
benji/add-sphinx-style-parameters
branch
from
ab1f974
to
1e7dda2
Compare
|
Meta comment: I'm not sure what constraints this project is running under, but the combination of required CI jobs for PR progress, required admin approval for CI jobs, and slow admin approval make for a painful contribution process—as exemplified by the timeline of this PR. |
|
This PR added the change to the changelog section about 6.2.0, which was released ten months before merging this PR. |
Hi!
Numpy and Google-style parameter documentation is great, but some people use Sphinx-style parameter docs. This PR adds support for those to the D417 checker.
This is my first contribution to pydocstyle, so I'm unsure about the testing style. In particular, the tests I added in src/tests/test_sphinx.py seem to be a little out of character for the code base. However, they seem like good tests to me, so I would especially appreciate feedback on those.
--
Thanks for submitting a PR!
Please make sure to check for the following items:
If you've added an error code or changed an error code behavior,
you should probably add or change a test case file under
tests/test_cases/and addit to the list under
tests/test_definitions.py.If you've added or changed a command line option,
you should probably add or change a test in
tests/test_integration.py.Make sure to include the PR number after you open and get one.
Please don't get discouraged as it may take a while to get a review.