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

[python] Bump tsp 0.65.0 #5967

Merged
merged 17 commits into from
Feb 14, 2025
Merged

[python] Bump tsp 0.65.0 #5967

merged 17 commits into from
Feb 14, 2025

Conversation

msyyc
Copy link
Contributor

@msyyc msyyc commented Feb 12, 2025

No description provided.

@microsoft microsoft deleted a comment from azure-sdk Feb 12, 2025
@azure-sdk
Copy link
Collaborator

azure-sdk commented Feb 12, 2025

All changed packages have been documented.

  • @typespec/http-client-python
Show changes

@typespec/http-client-python - dependencies ✏️

Bump to tsp 0.65.0

@azure-sdk
Copy link
Collaborator

azure-sdk commented Feb 12, 2025

You can try these changes here

🛝 Playground 🌐 Website 📚 Next docs 🛝 VSCode Extension

@msyyc
Copy link
Contributor Author

msyyc commented Feb 12, 2025

Pylint check fails but I think it is pylint bug: pylint-dev/pylint#10230. I think pylint issue may not be resolved in short time, we have 2 solutions here:
(1) remove configuration for useless-suppression in pylintrc until the pylint issue is fixed.
(2) optimize logic to add pylint disable for line-too-long. Python emitter now has much logic to add single-line pylint disable for line-too-long in multi files. It is hard to maintain. And I think we could check it in last black part. In black part, we could get final result of generated code then if there is too long line, we could add pylint disable in head of the file. (e.g. here)

@msyyc
Copy link
Contributor Author

msyyc commented Feb 13, 2025

After discussion, we will optimize the pylint disable logic later (track issue is #5995) and I will think about another way to unblock this bump PR.

@msyyc
Copy link
Contributor Author

msyyc commented Feb 13, 2025

Update: can't find a workaround so I will fix #5995 directly in this PR.

@msyyc msyyc enabled auto-merge February 13, 2025 08:48
@msyyc msyyc added this pull request to the merge queue Feb 13, 2025
@github-merge-queue github-merge-queue bot removed this pull request from the merge queue due to no response for status checks Feb 13, 2025
@iscai-msft iscai-msft enabled auto-merge February 13, 2025 16:21
@iscai-msft iscai-msft added this pull request to the merge queue Feb 13, 2025
@github-merge-queue github-merge-queue bot removed this pull request from the merge queue due to failed status checks Feb 13, 2025
@msyyc msyyc added this pull request to the merge queue Feb 14, 2025
@msyyc msyyc removed this pull request from the merge queue due to a manual request Feb 14, 2025
@msyyc msyyc enabled auto-merge February 14, 2025 03:05
@msyyc msyyc added this pull request to the merge queue Feb 14, 2025
@github-merge-queue github-merge-queue bot removed this pull request from the merge queue due to no response for status checks Feb 14, 2025
@msyyc msyyc added this pull request to the merge queue Feb 14, 2025
Merged via the queue into main with commit d7b17df Feb 14, 2025
35 checks passed
@msyyc msyyc deleted the bum-tsp-0.65.0 branch February 14, 2025 06:24
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants