Repository navigation
Add separate_packages option - #2313
Conversation
|
Any chance of merging this one? It would really help me. Now I had to write a very ugly hack for the config file to simulate this behavior. |
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #2313 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 99.24% 99.25%
=======================================
Files 39 39
Lines 3057 3084 +27
Branches 675 682 +7
=======================================
+ Hits 3034 3061 +27
Misses 13 13
Partials 10 10 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
staticdev
left a comment
staticdev
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks a lot for your contributing @alex-liang3. I made some comments with suggestions of how to better benefit from the new option.
| section_output.append("") # Empty line for black compatibility | ||
| section_output.append(section_comment_end) | ||
|
|
||
| if section in config.separate_packages: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks a lot for this @alex-liang3. I know the complexy of this method was already high, but this pirce of code you added here is a perfect candidate for an extract method. With that we could start the needed refactor here to reduce the complexity. Could you please do this refactor?
| from .settings import DEFAULT_CONFIG, Config | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| # Ignore DeepSource cyclomatic complexity check for this function. It was |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I believe we dont need to add those lines (see my next comment).
|
|
||
| ## Separate Packages | ||
|
|
||
| Separate packages within the listed sections with newlines. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would you mind adding an example here to make it more clear?
|
Thanks for the review @staticdev, and all your efforts on this project so far! I've made the requested changes now, but unfortunately the function call itself still adds +1 to the cyclomatic complexity (the criticality threshold is 50). Let me know what you think of the changes :) |
|
Hello @staticdev, I'm also interested in using this feature. Would it be possible to consider merging it? |
|
@alex-liang3 Sorry this rotted. Do you mind giving maintainers access to push to this branch? That way I can resolve merge conflicts and ensure this gets merged. |
f4d1034 to
9cf9d50
Compare
Adds the ability to separate packages within a section with blank lines. --------- Co-authored-by: Lucas <lucas.bremond@gmail.com> chore: make python3.8-compatible (#2) chore: use python 3.8-style typing ci: ignore PY-R1000 refactor: breakout function, add examples (#4) * Revert "ci: ignore PY-R1000" * refactor: breakout logic into separate function * docs: add examples chore: remove py3.8 types style: fix format style: fix formatting
|
Hi @DanielNoord, unfortunately I can't give maintainers access to that branch, but I've gone ahead and fixed up the merge conflicts. Let me know if you need any other changes :) |
Resolves #2104 by adding a separate_packages config option. This should also cover #2262.
Sections provided in this field will have the packages within them be separated by a blank line. This also works with custom known_OTHER sections; see tests for examples.
For reference, these changes increase the cyclomatic complexity (PY-R1000) of this function from 68 to 75, so I'm proposing to ignore the check on this function for the same reason as in https://github.com/PyCQA/isort/pull/2340/files#diff-d97e563d18af5b82fdf3bbb340c60da3e6955177a064fcbaf7e8676589933ddaR243