Replies: 2 comments 8 replies
-
Thanks for looking into this @lmilbaum. I agree with @JohnVillalovos I prefer how tox manages the environments over pre-commit's special venv handling, and it gives us a more native way of handling dependencies. I would also prefer to have that as the test & lint runner (or an equivalent environment manager). But I do use pre-commit as it sometimes still catches a few things before CI, and the main idea was to have that for contributors before opening PRs as it's a significant overhead on almost every PR review opened by new contributors and wastes CI resources. I guess I don't really have a good answer to this, if there was a way for pre-commit to use native python venvs from tox (e.g. the local hook approach), then maybe that'd be the best way. I should say |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I guess I don't see this is a major issue having both. In my mind and in my usage, If we had to choose between both I would strongly vote for |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
The project is using two liniting frameworks: tox and pre-commit. Each has its own configuration files and a CI workflow.
That is a cause for some friction as the code is duplicated.
A followup from a discussion over #2320 with @JohnVillalovos
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions