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

Stop using printf-style string formatting for direct string interpolation (%s) #2277

Draft
wants to merge 13 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

Avasam
Copy link
Collaborator

@Avasam Avasam commented Jun 4, 2024

Follow-up to #2122

Merging #2278 first will reduce changes

Ran using ruff check --select=UP031 --exclude=adodbapi --unsafe-fixes --fix then ruff format
This replaces all usages of exclusively %s for string formatting with newer style .format introduced in Python 2.6 .
This autofix is considered "unsafe" when Ruff cannot statically establish that the following case is always false:

A single %s in the string, formatted with a 1-item tuple. ie: "foor%s" % ("bar",)

References:

https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/printf-string-formatting/#why-is-this-bad

printf-style string formatting has a number of quirks, and leads to less readable code than using str.format calls or f-strings. In general, prefer the newer str.format and f-strings constructs over printf-style string formatting.

https://docs.python.org/3/library/stdtypes.html#printf-style-string-formatting

Note The formatting operations described here exhibit a variety of quirks that lead to a number of common errors (such as failing to display tuples and dictionaries correctly). Using the newer formatted string literals, the str.format() interface, or template strings may help avoid these errors. Each of these alternatives provides their own trade-offs and benefits of simplicity, flexibility, and/or extensibility.

@Avasam Avasam requested a review from mhammond October 18, 2024 18:24
@Avasam Avasam marked this pull request as draft January 7, 2025 21:44
@Avasam
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Avasam commented Jan 7, 2025

Ruff was updated to catch more cases that are not autofixable. I'll have to split this one in more gradual parts.

@Avasam Avasam removed the request for review from mhammond January 7, 2025 21:45
@mhammond
Copy link
Owner

mhammond commented Jan 8, 2025

I'm having real trouble getting excited about changes dictated by an external tool which don't actually fix or change any functionality. These kinds of changes (and many of the other PRs, particularly ones described as "prefer x over y") are IMO best done when the code is otherwise being changed. Some of the typing related changes seem good if they help consumers of these packages (eg, typing params to public functions), but in the same way, internal changes which only type things but otherwise make no changes seem like busy work.

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.

2 participants