Repository management and code standards#

JupyterHub projects should take advantage of pre-commit and tools to help maintain consistent formatting within a repo to improve overall code quality, review efficiency, and readability of code. Sensible use of pre-commit to run formatting tools and code linters can add consistency and improve maintainability.

Preferred tools and pre-commit hooks#

The team has found the following tools and their pre-commit hooks to be useful. The following pre-commit hooks can be added to any repo when convenient, though please communicate with anyone who has an open pull request if it will lead to major conflicts:

  • black

  • prettier

  • flake8

  • TODO: standard pre-commit hooks, such as isort, etc. (To be determined and listed here)

Applying to repos#

When creating a new repo, please use any pre-commit hooks and tools that are useful.

When working with an existing repo, please balance the benefits of adding a tool or pre-commit hook with considerations such as

  • the amount of code churn

  • how it will improve code maintainability

  • the time it may add to CI runs.

Configuration of a tool#

In general using the default settings for tools is preferred, but use your judgment as to whether to apply a stricter or more lenient configuration for linting code. Example configurations are in:

  • JupyterHub (a large repository which was converted and therefore has a fairly lax configuration)

  • nativeauthenticator (a fairly strict configuration)

Other linters, autoformatters and tools can be added to other repos on an ad-hoc basis if it’s not too disruptive- this is a good way to try out new tools. In general, big changes should not be made to high profile repos without prior discussion.

Proposing organization-wide use of a tool#

If the new tool is useful across the organisation please propose it in a new team-compass GitHub issue, outlining the advantages and disadvantages.