Adding docstrings to more complex checkers. #2933
Conversation
jpodivin
requested review from
a team,
lbarcziova,
majamassarini,
mfocko and
nforro
as code owners
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This is a great initiative to add documentation to the checkers. The added docstrings improve the code's readability. I've noticed a few places where the docstring formatting could be improved to better align with PEP 257 for multi-line docstrings. I've left a few suggestions to address this, as well as a minor typo.
|
Build succeeded. ✔️ pre-commit SUCCESS in 1m 45s |
Signed-off-by: Jiri Podivin <[email protected]>
jpodivin
force-pushed
the
checkers/docstrings
branch
from
c4f43d8 to
8c8f2b3
Compare
|
Build succeeded. ✔️ pre-commit SUCCESS in 1m 47s |
1 participant
While working on code for Log Detective, I have noticed that most checkers don't have any documentation.
If they are short, the code is enough, but in some cases they can be complex and have side effects.
I have written some short explanatory docstrings for those checkers that seemed to need them,
and placed them on the class level, so they can be seen when someone hovers over the class name in IDE.
Technically, you could put them in the
_pre_checkmethod, but this way it's more user friendly.I deliberately decided against describing operation of simple checkers and details of operation.
This PR is only focusing on parts that may give people trouble.
RELEASE NOTES BEGIN
Enhanced documentation of checker classes.
RELEASE NOTES END