Re: Running iotest linters from check-python-* CI jobs

[Max Reitz]

On 22.06.21 16:57, John Snow wrote:
> Hi Kevin:
>
> At one point I had the idea to augment the Python linter CI jobs to 
> also run the iotest linters. I thought it would be convenient to 
> ensure that while I changed around the QMP and Machine packages that I 
> didn't introduce regressions in iotest 297 either.
>
> I sent an RFC, got feedback from Vladimir (Who seemed broadly in favor 
> of the idea), and then wrote a v2 that I never sent.
>
> RFC: Message-Id: <20210604163907.1511224-1-jsnow@redhat.com>
>
> mreitz stated (on IRC) in no uncertain terms they were not happy with 
> the idea of 297 becoming gating CI, so I held off on pursuing the 
> idea. I wanted to reach out and see if you had feelings on the matter, 
> or if I should indeed just shelve it entirely.

My main point was that I don’t want to have to have an opinion on this 
topic. ;)

It’s true that I’m not happy about linters being part of gating CI, but 
I also stated that I cannot defend this gut feeling, and that I feel 
like it’s “objectively” wrong.  Therefore, I don’t want to be part of 
such a discussion, if I can avoid it.
(To my defense, in virtiofsd-rs I myself made a linter part of the 
gating CI.  That’s because we already had another linter in it, and 
because my gut feeling is much easier to suppress when it’s about a 
small project with few maintainers to annoy.  It has nothing to do with 
me hating Python coding style guidelines, because I probably hate Rust 
coding style guidelines just as much.)

In any case, I had understood you wanted to make 297 part of the 
non-gating CI anyway, though, so I wonder what of the things I said made 
you shelve that idea.
(Another concern I had was linter updates breaking CI, but you promised 
to keep the linter in a steady configuration so this wouldn’t happen.  
So all in all, I can’t remember I brought any argument that would 
actually speak against your idea.)

Max