You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Hi, I was wondering if you would be open to PRs to improve the general software engineering quality of this repo. This is the sort of thing I'm thinking of in increasing order of invasiveness:
Add pre-commit, tell it to format all the Python code using Black or Ruff and enforce in CI.
Add Pylint to pre-commit.
Restructure the code to turn it into an actual Python package with pyproject.toml etc. Publish it on Pypi.
Add static type hints.
Add Pyright (static type checker) to pre-commit to enforce them.
There's also some low hanging fruit in the actual code:
Use argparse (Typer is a better option but it's beneficial not to add a third party dependency.)
Switch from ad-hoc dictionaries to dataclasses.
Don't reparse the files 3 times.
I can do all that fairly easily but I thought I'd check if you would actually accept those improvements first. Seems like you might a bit review bottlenecked based on the open PRs (who isn't?).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Commenting here to have just a glimpse of the improvements in software engineering qualities such as Refactorization, Modularization and using as much Optimization techniques as we can for better maintainability and enhancing the readability as well. Tagging a PR also with reference to above.
Hi, I was wondering if you would be open to PRs to improve the general software engineering quality of this repo. This is the sort of thing I'm thinking of in increasing order of invasiveness:
pre-commit
, tell it to format all the Python code using Black or Ruff and enforce in CI.pre-commit
.pyproject.toml
etc. Publish it on Pypi.pre-commit
to enforce them.There's also some low hanging fruit in the actual code:
I can do all that fairly easily but I thought I'd check if you would actually accept those improvements first. Seems like you might a bit review bottlenecked based on the open PRs (who isn't?).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: