-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6.9k
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
use one line boolean condition with add types #9666
Conversation
- add types
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The valid_datetime
change is cleaner, okay. We're not generally accepting these types of PRs, tho one part of this is sufficiently obvious and reasonable. (We could put even harder boundaries in place here?)
Some suggested changes here to keep the codebase consistent.
I think we need to behave consistently in accepting these kind of PRs: we either accept them or we don't. Yes it's a trivial change but accepting this will IMO open the door to others (e.g. might be harder to decline these #9286 #9285). I looked up to see if there was a clear technical benefit (from the machine perspective) of making this change and didn't find a compelling argument. Ruff has a page for each rule that usually make a good case for them and according to this one, it seems to be mostly about readability... With that in mind, I'm -1 for this change, unless we find a way to rephrase the note from our contributing page, which currently reads:
|
🫡 |
Seems reasonable to me, @browniebroke. Less noise less churn please. |
simple refactoring