Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We fixed f-string typos in popular Python repos

highertier.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 154 posts

Re: We fixed f-string typos in popular Python repos

#91

Post by TameAntelope »

mhils wrote: post #69

We've been one of 666 repos, and I'm not too happy of having our repo used as advertising space. Some thoughts: - I'm happy to receive fix-a-typo PRs from human users. In this case the other side demonstrated that they care by putting in a bit of manual effort, and a small PR often paves the way towards larger contributions. I also know that open source beginners get really excited about their first small contributio…

I just... think you should reconsider your stance on this. If you made a mistake in a public repo and someone else caught it (via scan of your repo or otherwise), it's a pretty bad look to be anything but grateful at that point, PR benefits for the bot aside.

Re: We fixed f-string typos in popular Python repos

#92

Post by omegalulw »

mhils wrote: post #69

We've been one of 666 repos, and I'm not too happy of having our repo used as advertising space. Some thoughts: - I'm happy to receive fix-a-typo PRs from human users. In this case the other side demonstrated that they care by putting in a bit of manual effort, and a small PR often paves the way towards larger contributions. I also know that open source beginners get really excited about their first small contributio…

I understand the sentiment but you should be judging the PR, not the source. Ask yourself: would you have happily accepted the same PR that the bot sent if it came from a human?

By all means, I am not against having bots identify themselves properly, my point is that "effort from bot PR is ~0", "it advertises their platform" are simply not the right reasons to judge this situation by.

Re: We fixed f-string typos in popular Python repos

#94

Post by llbeansandrice »

dewey wrote: post #3

> For science you can see the reactions here. That link seems to be broken: https://github.com/issues?q=is%3Aissue+author%3Acode-review-... I was actually surprised to read that people would ignore or be annoyed by a bot raising a valid PR that can be easily merged after a quick glance. What would be the reason for that?

I would never tolerate ads in my commit history. That's ridiculous.

It's basically using open source repos as an advertising platform for their static-analysis bot.

If they want to offer services, they can reach out to the maintainers. This is different than a human opening a valid PR on a OS repo since the commit message includes an ad and now they're advertising on HN.

Re: We fixed f-string typos in popular Python repos

#95

Post by hathawsh »

saila wrote: post #83
jldugger wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if an autoformatter like black is at play here.

Black doesn't split strings, and I doubt they'd choose to use concatenation if they did.

I kind of wish Black would split and join literal strings. I've seen several times when Black converted code like this:

    raise SomeError(
        "Explanation... "
        "yet more explanation"
    )
To this:

    raise SomeError(
        "Explanation... " "yet more explanation"
    )
That just looks odd. Black is fantastic, but not perfect.

Re: We fixed f-string typos in popular Python repos

#96

Post by brandonbloom »

dewey wrote: post #3

> For science you can see the reactions here. That link seems to be broken: https://github.com/issues?q=is%3Aissue+author%3Acode-review-... I was actually surprised to read that people would ignore or be annoyed by a bot raising a valid PR that can be easily merged after a quick glance. What would be the reason for that?

In addition to what others have already said, my own random sampling now shows quite a high false positive rate.

Re: We fixed f-string typos in popular Python repos

#97

Post by colejohnson66 »

IshKebab wrote: post #72
mhils wrote: post #69

We've been one of 666 repos, and I'm not too happy of having our repo used as advertising space. Some thoughts: - I'm happy to receive fix-a-typo PRs from human users. In this case the other side demonstrated that they care by putting in a bit of manual effort, and a small PR often paves the way towards larger contributions. I also know that open source beginners get really excited about their first small contributio…

I feel the same way about those bots that tell you about insignificant security vulnerabilities in some project you abandoned. It's basically spam. That said, this does seem like it is a bit more useful. As long as they actually read the changes and make sure they aren't false positives. Which I'm guessing they didn't do for 666 repos.

> I feel the same way about those bots that tell you about insignificant security vulnerabilities in some project you abandoned. It's basically spam.

If you "archive" your repos, dependabot and friends won’t bother you.

Or, you could just disable security alerts in your repo's settings.

Re: We fixed f-string typos in popular Python repos

#98

Post by wbobeirne »

TrickardRixx wrote: post #10
dewey wrote: post #3

> For science you can see the reactions here. That link seems to be broken: https://github.com/issues?q=is%3Aissue+author%3Acode-review-... I was actually surprised to read that people would ignore or be annoyed by a bot raising a valid PR that can be easily merged after a quick glance. What would be the reason for that?

Automated checking of potential bugs in f-strings is hard. There are lots of false positives. You can see some discussion around this kind of rule in pylint [0]. At the end of the day, the choice to run automated linting tools on a repo is up to the maintainers. Autogenerating PRs like this is incredibly noisy and comes off to me as a blatant advertisement for their "code review doctor" product. [0] https://github.co…

> Autogenerating PRs like this

The article specifically mentions that they were not auto-generated,

"It was also interesting to see the reaction from open source developers to unsolicited pull requests from what looks like a bot (really a bot found the problem and made the PR, but really a human developer at Code Review Doctor did triage the issue before the PR was raised)"

Re: We fixed f-string typos in popular Python repos

#99

Post by bbayles »

bobbiechen wrote: post #21
memco wrote: post #17

The article links to some docs for the logging module here: https://docs.python.org/3/howto/logging.html#optimization asserting that f-strings are less optimal but the docs do not say that they do not optimize our the expression evaluation of f-strings: only that the logging module tried to perform evaluation as late as possible: where is the f-string described as suboptimal? Relatedly the logging optimization sugges…

I was also confused by the expression evaluation thing. Reading between the lines, it seems like logger.debug("hello %s", foo) may be better than logger.debug(f"hello {foo}") in the case when loglevel is higher than debug. In the first version, the final string does not have to be computed, while in the second version, we might construct the string and then do nothing since the loglevel is excluded.

The first is better also because you can do things with loggers other than print out their contents. For example, suppose you had a statement like:

    logger.debug('Database error: %s', error_message)
You probably have a logging handler that did the normal string. But you can also have one that keeps a count of how many `Database error: %s` hits there are (as opposed to `Network error: %s`) there are over time. Doing the string substitution would break this aggregation.

Re: We fixed f-string typos in popular Python repos

#100

Post by dogecoinbase »

omegalulw wrote: post #92
mhils wrote: post #69

We've been one of 666 repos, and I'm not too happy of having our repo used as advertising space. Some thoughts: - I'm happy to receive fix-a-typo PRs from human users. In this case the other side demonstrated that they care by putting in a bit of manual effort, and a small PR often paves the way towards larger contributions. I also know that open source beginners get really excited about their first small contributio…

I understand the sentiment but you should be judging the PR, not the source. Ask yourself: would you have happily accepted the same PR that the bot sent if it came from a human? By all means, I am not against having bots identify themselves properly, my point is that "effort from bot PR is ~0", "it advertises their platform" are simply not the right reasons to judge this situation by.

Ask yourself: would you treat a PR differently if it came from a regular, trusted contributor, or some random person (or bot)?
Post reply on HN