Skip to content
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

Update Pylint to 3.0.3 #1351

Merged
merged 17 commits into from
Feb 23, 2024
Merged

Update Pylint to 3.0.3 #1351

merged 17 commits into from
Feb 23, 2024

Conversation

lbianchi-lbl
Copy link
Contributor

Summary/Motivation:

This was originally part of #1346, but I thought it would be better to move the Pylint-specific changes to a separate PR.

Changes proposed in this PR:

  • Update Pylint to 3.0.3
  • Apply the necessary changes to resolve all outstanding messages

Legal Acknowledgement

By contributing to this software project, I agree to the following terms and conditions for my contribution:

  1. I agree my contributions are submitted under the license terms described in the LICENSE.txt file at the top level of this directory.
  2. I represent I am authorized to make the contributions and grant the license. If my employer has rights to intellectual property that includes these contributions, I represent that I have received permission to make contributions and grant the required license on behalf of that employer.

@lbianchi-lbl lbianchi-lbl added the CI:run-integration triggers_workflow: Integration label Feb 23, 2024
@idaes-build idaes-build removed the CI:run-integration triggers_workflow: Integration label Feb 23, 2024
Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 23, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 48.14815% with 14 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 77.58%. Comparing base (42b4634) to head (3e70fd0).

Files Patch % Lines
idaes/core/util/expr_doc.py 0.00% 6 Missing ⚠️
idaes/core/base/process_block.py 66.66% 0 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
...ra/power_generation/costing/power_plant_capcost.py 33.33% 2 Missing ⚠️
idaes/core/dmf/commands.py 0.00% 1 Missing ⚠️
idaes/core/dmf/userapi.py 0.00% 1 Missing ⚠️
...ra/power_generation/unit_models/boiler_fireside.py 0.00% 1 Missing ⚠️
...generation/unit_models/boiler_heat_exchanger_2D.py 0.00% 1 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1351      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   77.58%   77.58%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         391      391              
  Lines       64288    64288              
  Branches    11815    11812       -3     
==========================================
- Hits        49881    49879       -2     
- Misses      11825    11828       +3     
+ Partials     2582     2581       -1     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Copy link
Member

@andrewlee94 andrewlee94 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This looks good to me.

@@ -356,6 +368,8 @@ def __init__(
print("The default training/cross-validation split of 0.75 is used.")
training_split = 0.75
elif training_split >= 1 or training_split <= 0:
# PYLINT-TODO
# pylint: disable-next=broad-exception-raised
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Not for this PR, but this looks like we should create an issue about using more specific error types here.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I definitely agree, I almost thought I could do it as part of this PR since it's straightforward from the technical point of view, but then I thought we might want to think it through a bit more. I've just created #1352 to track this.

Copy link
Contributor

@agarciadiego agarciadiego left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@lbianchi-lbl lbianchi-lbl merged commit 57cf0a7 into IDAES:main Feb 23, 2024
60 of 73 checks passed
@ksbeattie ksbeattie added the Priority:High High Priority Issue or PR label Feb 29, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Priority:High High Priority Issue or PR
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants