Re: [PATCH 4/4] test: Make net tests depend on CONFIG_CMD_NET

[Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3113 bytes --]

On Sat, Feb 15, 2025 at 06:02:39AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Tom,
> 
> On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 at 16:01, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 25, 2025 at 03:56:02PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > Hi Tom,
> > >
> > > On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 at 15:50, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Jan 25, 2025 at 03:47:26PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > > Hi Tom,
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 at 14:44, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sat, Jan 25, 2025 at 02:31:39PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > > > > This fails on samus_tpl as there is no 'net' command.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >    => net list
> > > > > > >    Unknown command 'net' - try 'help' !
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Fix it by adding a condition for the test.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For this part,
> > > > > > Reviewed-by: Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Add a blank line to keep pylint happy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can we silence that pylint? I don't look forward to the churn of adding
> > > > > > more blanks everywhere especially since imo it doesn't improve
> > > > > > readability either.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, but we would want to do it globally. But it isn't really a good
> > > > > idea IMO. We are trying to use PEP8 which loads of tools expect...e.g.
> > > > > my IDE shows warnings in this case. It might be better to just fix the
> > > > > problems.
> > > > >
> > > > > As to readability, I'm on the fence...in practice it doesn't matter
> > > > > much as few non-trivial programs have a lot of top-level functions. I
> > > > > would rather keep the tool happy and use the Python style that people
> > > > > expect when coming into the project.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, we should do it globally. Can we not globally also tell tools the
> > > > deviations from PEP8? I remember back when people would argue about if
> > > > we should tell file editors what to expect for whitespace, etc :)
> > >
> > > I'm sure we can do anything. But why deviate? Is it just that you want
> > > to avoid churn, or do you actually not like this part of PEP8?
> >
> > I think it looks bad (personal preference) and we have that in almost
> > none of our tests I suspect so adding blank lines to make PEP8 happy
> > rather than adding hopefully a line to a common file normal tooling
> > reads seems the wrong direction. But I don't care enough to not apply it
> > if someone else does it. I'll add missing blank lines when needed
> > assuming the pylint CI job complains once it's done.
> 
> OK. I'm a bit confused about the double-line warning since pylint
> doesn't actually show it! For now I've changed my IDE to use pylint
> and disable pycodestyle so now I don't see these.
> 
> The current Python files show up with lots of (other) warnings for me
> and I would like to fix them. But it is quite time-consuming.

Note that I posted a series this past week that, with one RFC'd
exception, fixes everything "make pylint_err" complains about with
current pylint.

-- 
Tom

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 659 bytes --]