Deprecate suspicious.py?

@birkenfeld

BPO	42238
Nosy	@birkenfeld, @rhettinger, @ned-deily, @ambv, @willingc, @JulienPalard, @pablogsal, @erlend-aasland, @AlexWaygood
PRs	bpo-42238: Doc: Remove make suspicious from the CI and docs builds. #23313 bpo-42238: Check Misc/NEWS.d/next/ for reStructuredText issues. #23802 bpo-42238: Doc CI: Disable suspicious checks. #26575 bpo-42238: rstlint: Add two new checks. #26966 bpo-42238: Fix small rst issue in NEWS.d/. #27238 bpo-42238: [doc] Some more make suspicious false positives. #27945 bpo-42238: [doc] remove unused, and deduplicate, suspicious ignore rules. #28137 bpo-42238: [doc]: update susp-ignored.csv after a98b273c. #28827 bpo-42238: [doc]: Hide false positive in make suspicious. #29636 bpo-42238: [doc] Announce the future removal of make suspicous. #29652 bpo-42238: [doc]: Spotted errors while working on rstlint. #30879 bpo-42238: [doc] Avoid hardcoding fast-moving lines in susp-ignored.csv. #30981 bpo-42238: [doc] moving from rstlint.py to sphinx-lint. #31097 bpo-42238: [doc] Some more make suspicious false positives. #31977 bpo-42238: [doc] Some lines moved in rst, but had hardcoded lineno in… #32070 bpo-42238: [doc]: make suspicious: false positive. #32292 bpo-42238: [doc]: A make sucpicious false positive. #32329

^{Note: these values reflect the state of the issue at the time it was migrated and might not reflect the current state.}

Show more details

GitHub fields:

assignee = 'https://github.com/JulienPalard'
closed_at = None
created_at = <Date 2020-11-01.23:49:23.937>
labels = ['docs']
title = 'Deprecate suspicious.py?'
updated_at = <Date 2022-04-06.11:53:50.624>
user = 'https://github.com/JulienPalard'

bugs.python.org fields:

activity = <Date 2022-04-06.11:53:50.624>
actor = 'mdk'
assignee = 'mdk'
closed = False
closed_date = None
closer = None
components = ['Documentation']
creation = <Date 2020-11-01.23:49:23.937>
creator = 'mdk'
dependencies = []
files = []
hgrepos = []
issue_num = 42238
keywords = ['patch']
message_count = 56.0
messages = ['380167', '380169', '380171', '381075', '381802', '382219', '383149', '383171', '383292', '390898', '390904', '391163', '391164', '391177', '391182', '391185', '391209', '391212', '392165', '392177', '395311', '396567', '396568', '396774', '396891', '397792', '397802', '400259', '400324', '401123', '403523', '404067', '406575', '406604', '406654', '406810', '406978', '408724', '411565', '411571', '411636', '411642', '411983', '412135', '412136', '412355', '412377', '412382', '412403', '412980', '414984', '415860', '416639', '416643', '416759', '416861']
nosy_count = 9.0
nosy_names = ['georg.brandl', 'rhettinger', 'ned.deily', 'lukasz.langa', 'willingc', 'mdk', 'pablogsal', 'erlendaasland', 'AlexWaygood']
pr_nums = ['23313', '23802', '26575', '26966', '27238', '27945', '28137', '28827', '29636', '29652', '30879', '30981', '31097', '31977', '32070', '32292', '32329']
priority = 'normal'
resolution = None
stage = 'patch review'
status = 'open'
superseder = None
type = None
url = 'https://bugs.python.org/issue42238'
versions = []

I was not here 21 years ago when it was introduced [1], but according to the commit message it was introduced to find leftover Latex mardown.

It tries to find 4 patterns in Sphinx node text (not in raw rst files):

::(?=[^=])| # two :: (but NOT ::=)

This one has ~100 false positive in susp-ignored.csv (pypi classifiers, slices, ipv6, ...)

:[a-zA-Z][a-zA-Z0-9]+| # :foo

This one has ~300 false positive in susp-ignored.csv (slices, C:\, ipv6, ...)

| # (seldom used by itself)

This one has ~20 false positive in susp-ignored.csv (mostly reStructuredText in code-blocks)

(?<!\.)\.\.[ \t]*\w+: # .. foo: (but NOT ... else:)

This one does not have false positives.

The script, on my laptop (with a core i9), is slow (4mn20s), and it's probably way slower on the CI.

I tried to search for suspicious is:pr in:comments on github to see if it's usefull:

2 contributor had an issue with the script (bpo-34831: Asyncio tutorial #9748, IDLE - Test WidgetRedirector #66139)
5 had to add false positive to susp-ignored.csv (bpo-4356: Add key function support to the bisect module #20556, listdir() doesn't work with non-trivial symlinks #57981, The copy module already uses copyreg #55690, Incorrect coverage file from trace test_pickle.py #53563, os.listdir inconsistenly releases the GIL on win32 #51164)
4 had to update susp-ignored.csv (bpo-30670: Add pp function to the pprint module #11769, With invalid FD, os.device_encoding() returns None under Linux but raises an error under Windows #49802, Undetected error in _struct.pack_into #47944, Backport next() #46971)
1 did not addedd to susp-ignored but changed to avoid a false positive (bpo-39939: Add str.removeprefix and str.removesuffix #18939)

Case where it actually helped:

Finding an error: (bpo-36345: Include the code from Tools/scripts/serve.py for the wsgiref-base web server example #12562 .. literalinclude: instead of .. literalinclude::)
Finding refs in code block (bpo-17045: Improve C-API doc for PyTypeObject. #7413)
Writing plaintext in Misc/NEWS (bpo-30052: Always regenerate cross-references #1339)

I'd go for enhancing rstlint.py (which is fast, ~1s on my laptop) a bit to try to handle the `.. literalinclude:` missing a `:` errors, and dropping suspicious.

So I'd appreciate feedback on this script, did it helped you recently?

1: 700cf28

I would love to see this disappear. For me, it has been a recurring time waster.

If it still does useful checks, we could just limit it to running by release managers during the release manufacturing process; it is already run then. It would still allow for problems to be caught and fixed by the RM prior to release tagging. But I don't have a strong opinion about its overall usefulness. I recall it catching at least one problem in a release I was involved with and that was probably before we had the CI checks.

Good idea Ned!

So proposed plan:

Drop it from docs build and the CI to avoid time loss.
Add it as a step of PEP-101, for a few release, for good measures
I'll check it from time to time between releases, just to ensure it does not accumulate tons of things to do on the the release day.

If during a few release, we notice this tool is no loger usefull we'll be able to drop it.

If we spot some errors that can be migrated to the rstlint.py we'll do.

If this tool is in fact usefull, we'll have to think about it again.

New changeset c9c6e9f by Julien Palard in branch 'master':
bpo-42238: Doc: Remove make suspicious from the CI and docs builds. (GH-23313)
c9c6e9f

I'll try to track this closely, the drop of make suspicious has been merged in master, but not backported yet, one week ago.

Up to today, no commit has introduced suspicious warnings (0 false positive, 0 false negative).

I think I'll soon backport the PR, if no one objects, because the current situation is a bit risky: some PR could get merged to master but fail the tests during the backport.

Today I spotted one error that suspicious could have spotted:

-both ``Callable``s no longer validate their ``argtypes``, in 
+both ``Callable``\ s no longer validate their ``argtypes``, in

I'm fixing it in #23800

make suspicious found it as:

[whatsnew/changelog:23] "`" found in "Callable``s no longer validate their ``argtypes"

So I'll doodle around this to see if tools/rstlint.py or Sphinx itself can see the error.

I created #23802 with a port of the "wrong backtick detector" (at least, one aspect from it) from suspicious to rstlint.

I dropped the suspicious check three weeks ago, and found a single committed issue since then, which was fixable (and is fixed) in rstlint, so I'll continue this experience and see where it goes.

New changeset b973542 by Julien Palard in branch 'master':
bpo-42238: Check Misc/NEWS.d/next/ for reStructuredText issues. (GH-23802)
b973542

Pablo reenabled the check:

commit 20ac347 (upstream/master, master)
Author: Pablo Galindo <Pablogsal@gmail.com>
Date: Mon Apr 12 20:53:15 2021 +0100

Fix Sphinx errors in the documentation and re-activate the suspicious check (GH-25368)

The suspicious check is still executed as part of the release process and release managers have been
lately fixing some actual errors that the suspicious target can find. For this reason, reactivate the suspicious
until we decide what to do in a coordinated fashion.

Background on why I reactivated it:

I every single alpha release I had to fix actual documentation errors (no false positives) like the one fixed here:

20ac347

I don't like the check, but the release management team don't like to have to restart the release process just fo fix a bunch of docs issues that should have been detected by the CI.

If we remove the fix, we need to coordinate all together because currently the status quo is that the RM team now is responsable of fixing the documentation errors as there are several release tools (and other ones) that depend on this target passing.

If reactivated, the tool needs to be substantially improved. It is NOT smart. The false positives for slicing and logging examples are unnecessarily annoying. It creates a barrier for people submitting documentation patches. Each of the 367 entries in the susp-ignored file represents wasted time for contributors.

Also the CSV format is arcane, hard-to-read, and hard-to-edit. It looks like it was quickly thrown together by someone who didn't care about usability. Perhaps there should be a simpler tools that says, "take this current failure and mark it as a false positive" without trying to be over specific.

Mandatory checks with a high false positive rate are an anti-pattern for CI systems. Already we've had one case of a contributor (me) who abandoned a doc patch rather than fight this tooling.

I agree with all you said, but I am against forcing the release management team to absorb the responsibility of fixing all the errors that the CI didn't catch, real or not. Releasing is already a multi-hour process and having many docs errors and formating mistakes to fix is a toll that should be paid at release time.

[3.11] gh-86404: [doc] Fix missing space in idle documentation. (GH-9…

gh-86404: [doc] Two 'make suspicious' false positives. (GH-94407)

pythongh-86404: [doc] Fix missing space in idle documentation. (pytho…

pythongh-86404: [doc] Two 'make suspicious' false positives. (pythonG…

Doc: Drop now unused make suspicious and rstlint.

gh-86404: Doc: Drop now unused make suspicious and rstlint. (GH-98179)

@JulienPalard

Congrats @JulienPalard for sphinx-lint!

pythongh-86404: Doc CI: Disable suspicious checks.

[3.10] gh-86404: Doc CI: Disable suspicious checks. (GH-26575) (GH-98221

Navigation Menu

Repository navigation

Deprecate suspicious.py? #86404

56 remaining items

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

Deprecate suspicious.py? #86404

Description

Activity

JulienPalard commented on Nov 1, 2020

rhettinger commented on Nov 2, 2020

ned-deily commented on Nov 2, 2020

JulienPalard commented on Nov 16, 2020

JulienPalard commented on Nov 25, 2020

JulienPalard commented on Dec 1, 2020

JulienPalard commented on Dec 16, 2020

JulienPalard commented on Dec 16, 2020

JulienPalard commented on Dec 18, 2020

vstinner commented on Apr 12, 2021

pablogsal commented on Apr 12, 2021

rhettinger commented on Apr 16, 2021

pablogsal commented on Apr 16, 2021

56 remaining items

vstinner commented on Oct 11, 2022

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

Issue actions