[yt-dev] Repo cleanup

[Nathan Goldbaum]

On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 9:36 AM, Britton Smith <brittonsmith at gmail.com>
wrote:

> yt_lodgeit.py is pretty useful for posting things to pastebin.  Is there a
> replacement for that?  If not, I don't see why we should get rid of it.
>
>
Yes, it's already in the repo: "yt/utilities/lodgeit.py", which is a copy
of yt_lodgeit.py.  The "yt pastebin" command uses the version that's in
yt.utilities, so as far as I can see the script does nothing right now.


> Britton
>
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 2:05 PM, Hilary Egan <hilaryye at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm +1 tentatively on these changes. I believe that the broken
>> functionality is all noted as currently not working in the docs, but we
>> should just make it explicitly clear what happened to it, what the problems
>> are, and what a user can do about it in the docs. As much as we don't want
>> some user trying to use a broken function and quitting yt, we also don't
>> want to frustrate past users (esp. primarily of 2.x) by making them think
>> we are deleting great parts of the code just to make them angry. :)
>>
>> On a somewhat related note, given that 2 point functionality was missing
>> in 3.0, I reimplemented a bunch of functionality from scratch for use in my
>> own research. My implementation probably isn't as fast, at least as is, but
>> I understand it and could probably work to bring the type of functionality
>> back if there is interest. If I remember correctly (on my phone so I can't
>> check) there was a lot of code in 2.x devoted to making the 2 point
>> selection fast, so I didn't feel comfortable simply porting it as I didn't
>> fully understand the logic. If whoever originally developed it or some
>> other motivated dev wants to jump in instead, that's fine with me!
>>
>>
>> -Hilary
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 7:37 AM Brian O'Shea <bwoshea at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm strongly -1 on removing analysis modules unless there's an
>>> exceptionally good reason - not just a vague sense that the code needs to
>>> be cleaned out.  For example, my research group uses lots of star
>>> particle-related analysis - in particular, generation of galaxy spectra
>>> from star particles - and getting rid of it would be bad.  I suggest
>>> leaving the 2-point function stuff in the code, but task somebody to update
>>> it to yt-3's standards, even it's a low priority.  Just because the core yt
>>> devs don't use it doesn't mean it isn't used or useful!
>>>
>>> Regarding the boolean objects, we also got a lot of use out of them in
>>> yt-2 and I was sad to see that get broken in yt-3.  Andrew, if you decide
>>> to work on that I'd be happy to collaborate and be a test subject!
>>>
>>> --Brian
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 7:35 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343 at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to spend some time in the next week or two doing some cleanup
>>>> and tidying up on the yt repo.  This comes in two flavors: removing dead
>>>> code and adding basic linting tests.
>>>>
>>>> Dead Code
>>>> ---------------
>>>>
>>>> There are still a number of big chunks of legacy code in the codebase
>>>> that aren't called by anything, including:
>>>>
>>>> * boolean data objects
>>>> * reason / reason plot widgets (yt.gui)
>>>> * two scripts in the top-level "scripts" directory (pyro_queue.py and
>>>> yt_lodgeit.py)
>>>> * the top-level "tests" directory
>>>> * possibly some of the analysis modules? (star_analysis and
>>>> two_point_functions)
>>>>
>>>> I'm curious what others think about removing some or all of this code.
>>>> I'd particularly like to hear if I'm wrong about the code in the list above
>>>> or if I've missed any chunks of unused code.
>>>>
>>>> I do understand the desire to keep the code in the repository in the
>>>> hopes that one day someone might make it functional, but I think this
>>>> consideration is balanced by how confusing it can be to come across dead
>>>> code and then get frustrated after finding weird incompatibilities.
>>>>
>>>> Basic Linting Tests
>>>> -------------------------
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to catch as many errors as possible by doing basic static
>>>> analysis of the yt codebase using pyflakes and flake8.  We already have
>>>> coverage with both tools run as part of the test suite, but introducing
>>>> errors detected by these tools does not fail the build. I'd like to add a
>>>> few of the errors caught by these tools to the test suite itself, making
>>>> the tools optional dependencies for the tests. Hopefully these new tests
>>>> will be useful and not obnoxious: I'm not talking about enforcing pep8 as
>>>> part of the test suite.
>>>>
>>>> To do this, I think the biggest change necessary is to get rid of all
>>>> instances of "import *" throughout the codebase. This will allow us to test
>>>> for unused imports (probably shouldn't fail the build) or missing imports
>>>> (definitely should fail the build).
>>>>
>>>> Again, I'd appreciate any comments or objections to this general
>>>> approach.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your attention! Sorry for the long e-mail...
>>>>
>>>> -Nathan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> yt-dev mailing list
>>>> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
>>>> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> yt-dev mailing list
>>> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
>>> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> yt-dev mailing list
>> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
>> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> yt-dev mailing list
> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.spacepope.org/pipermail/yt-dev-spacepope.org/attachments/20150810/9370baa6/attachment.htm>