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

Run black and isort over entire library #1203

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Aug 29, 2018
Merged

Run black and isort over entire library #1203

merged 4 commits into from
Aug 29, 2018

Conversation

meatballs
Copy link
Member

No description provided.

Copy link
Member

@marcharper marcharper left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It's a bit overzealous in some places IMO, I'm not sure if we can pick and choose here.

return wrapper


class ResultSet():
class ResultSet:
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

ResultSet(object)

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

+1

+ (self.two_turns_after_good_defection_ratio) - 5) / 15))
+ (1 / (((len(self.history))+1) ** 2))
- (self.dict[opponent.history[-1]] / 4)
(
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

this one is a bit much

turn == 41 and self.own_score < 113 or \
turn == 51 and self.own_score < 143 or \
turn == 101 and self.own_score < 293:
if (
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

IMO this one is better as

        if turn == 11 and self.own_score < 23
           or turn == 21 and self.own_score < 53
           or turn == 31 and self.own_score < 83
           or turn == 41 and self.own_score < 113
           or turn == 51 and self.own_score < 143
           or turn == 101 and self.own_score < 293:

@@ -1102,7 +1123,10 @@ def __init__(self):
self.burned = False

self.defect_streak = 0
self.parity_streak = [0, 0] # Counters that get (almost) alternatively incremented.
self.parity_streak = [
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

        # Counters that get (almost) alternatively incremented.
        self.parity_streak = [0, 0]

@@ -1255,7 +1280,9 @@ def strategy(self, opponent: Player) -> Action:
if turn % 15 == 0 and turn > 15:
if self.detect_random(turn):
self.mode = "Defect"
return self.try_return(D, lower_flags=False) # Lower_flags not used here.
return self.try_return(
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

# Lower_flags not used here.
return self.try_return(D, lower_flags=False)

@@ -1282,11 +1308,15 @@ def strategy(self, opponent: Player) -> Action:
if self.detect_streak(opponent.history[-1]):
return self.try_return(D, inc_parity=True)
if self.detect_parity_streak(opponent.history[-1]):
self.parity_streak[self.parity_bit] = 0 # Reset `parity_streak` when we hit the limit.
self.parity_streak[
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

same

self.parity_hits += 1 # Keep track of how many times we hit the limit.
if self.parity_hits >= 8: # After 8 times, lower the limit.
self.parity_limit = 3
return self.try_return(C, inc_parity=True) # Inc parity won't get used here.
return self.try_return(
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

same

+ "{str_list[1]:^{width}}|"
+ "{str_list[2]:^{width}}"
)
display_line = header_line.replace("|", ",") + ": {str_list[3]},"

def make_commaed_str(action_tuple):
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

make_command_str ?

}

def __init__(self) -> None:
super().__init__()
self.init_sequence = [
C, C, D, C, D, D, D, C, C, D, C, D, C, C, D, C, D, D, C, D
C,
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This was better as is IMO

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

+1

@meatballs
Copy link
Member Author

for me, we either go for it lock, stock and barrel or we don't bother. If we start attempting to pick and choose, we'll give ourselves another maintenance task and we'll negate the whole point of using a automated tool to decide on formatting.

@marcharper
Copy link
Member

Ok, I'm on board with that.

@meatballs
Copy link
Member Author

Although I will poke around at some of black's options to see if there's anything that might make it a little less aggressive.

@langner
Copy link
Member

langner commented Aug 26, 2018

Have you compared with autopep8 and other formatters?

@drvinceknight
Copy link
Member

drvinceknight commented Aug 28, 2018

I agree that in some places it doesn't format how I would choose to format but I agree (definitely) with @meatballs, I think the advantage of using black is that it just means we don't need to exert energy/time on formatting. I'd suggest sticking with the defaults so that we don't even need to discuss picking and choosing them.

Thanks for doing this @meatballs 👍

@marcharper
Copy link
Member

@meatballs

Can you add something to the documentation regarding that we use these autoformatters and briefly how users can follow suit? Do we want to add the formatters as a hook to be automatically applied (perhaps in another PR?).

@meatballs
Copy link
Member Author

It's already added to the documentation in this PR. The automation, I was going to look into separately.

@marcharper
Copy link
Member

I see that now but it doesn't say if we require that a PR be formatted in this way and/or that it is the canonical style that we except so please don't submit PRs that just change the formatting to a personal preference, etc.

Otherwise LGTM

@meatballs
Copy link
Member Author

I didn't want to be as prescriptive as saying that's the style we accept. We can always run the formatter on a file afterwards if anything needs cleaning up and, once it's automated, we don't really need to bother saying it at all.

@marcharper marcharper merged commit 819e7cc into master Aug 29, 2018
@meatballs meatballs deleted the format branch October 26, 2018 11:31
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants