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

Modified configuration page of user guide to include init-hook description #10111

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

JessJohn0
Copy link

Type of Changes

Type
βœ“ πŸ“œ Docs

Description

Updates the configuration section of the user guide with information on configuring an init-hook.
For example, if a user needs to set an alternative site-packages path.

Closes #9974

@DanielNoord
Copy link
Collaborator

I'd love for this to be based on the in-code documentation of init-hook just like we automatically generate the documentation for all the other configuration options.

Did you consider looking into such a solution?

@Pierre-Sassoulas Pierre-Sassoulas added Documentation πŸ“— Skip news πŸ”‡ This change does not require a changelog entry labels Dec 8, 2024
@JessJohn0
Copy link
Author

Ah ok. I now see that the pylint_options.py file is pulling the options for the checkers/extensions from base_options.py. I'm not sure what the best way to pull in just the information for init-hook for the configuration page would be? Unless we were wanting to generate a separate page for the run options. This is my first time contributing and I think this may be a bigger change than I realized.

@Pierre-Sassoulas
Copy link
Member

I think Daniel meant that the modification should be done here:

"init-hook",
{
"action": _DoNothingAction,
"kwargs": {},
"help": "Python code to execute, usually for sys.path "
"manipulation such as pygtk.require().",
},
),

Probably not using markdown or rst formatting, so maybe a modification / simplification of the current text is in order too ?

@DanielNoord
Copy link
Collaborator

No I think @JessJohn0 is right and this is basically #6938 but then worded for a single option.

It would be better to solve #6938 instead of making individual pages/solutions for each option.

@Pierre-Sassoulas
Copy link
Member

Ha, right, my bad. Definitely not a "good first issue" then. What should we do with the current modification ?

@JessJohn0
Copy link
Author

That makes sense to me. #6938 looks to be more than I can handle currently. Thank you for your help!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Documentation πŸ“— Skip news πŸ”‡ This change does not require a changelog entry
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Document how to configure the location of site packages in pylint
3 participants