Consider whether we should run formatting on goldens, or improve the output of the generator

Open
#18,439 1 comment 0 reactions 0 assignees View on GitHub

Maintainers usually reply within 1 day

Nobody has claimed this yet.

Assessment

Difficulty
5/5
Estimated time
Over a week
Newbie friendliness
35/100
Issue type
Feature
Clarity
Needs clarification
Activity status
Active
Tech stack
python
Domain
testing, tooling

Research direction

Start with the linked pull request discussion, then inspect the golden files under packages/gapic-generator/tests/integration/goldens and the generator output they represent. Determine whether the intended direction is formatting goldens with ruff or changing the generator, and confirm the chosen approach produces consistently formatted golden files without an extra post-processing step.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.

Description

See this thread where there is an expectation that ruff should run on the golden files . Alternatively, we could improve the output of the generator so that formatting is not needed as a post processing step however it may be difficult to prioritize this work since we already have a solution with ruff.

Dominant language
Python
Stars
5.4k
Forks
1.8k
Avg merge
2d 7h
Merged PRs (30d)
173

Getting set up

First steps

  1. Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
  2. Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
  3. Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
  4. Open a pull request that references the issue number.

More from googleapis/google-cloud-python

All issues in googleapis/google-cloud-python

Similar issues

More Python issues

Get new issues in your inbox

A short digest of beginner-friendly GitHub issues.