enh(eic checklist): Suggested checklist items #360
Conversation
eliotwrobson
force-pushed
the
typechecking_suggestions
branch
from
733c7e0 to
e09b925
Compare
| - [ ] **Archive** (JOSS only, may be post-review): The repository DOI resolves correctly. | ||
| - [ ] **Version** (JOSS only, may be post-review): Does the release version given match the GitHub release (v1.0.0)? | ||
|
|
||
| **Optional but recommended:** |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| **Optional but recommended:** | |
| **Optional but recommended:** | |
| - [ ] **Linting** The package uses automated linting (e.g., [ruff](https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/)) to enforce code style and quality standards, ideally integrated with CI. | ||
| - [ ] **Type checking** The package includes type hints and uses a type checker (e.g., [mypy](https://mypy-lang.org/)) to catch type-related issues, ideally integrated with CI. | ||
| - [ ] **Modern tooling** The package uses modern Python development tools (e.g., [uv](https://docs.astral.sh/uv/) for dependency management and virtual environments) to streamline development workflows. | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Great to see linting and type checking requirements appearing optionally. Maybe a separate policy and a general timeline to move packages all packages over to requiring linting and type checks is in order?
The modern tooling part is very opinionated and we're leaning toward poetry in the package build guides from what I recall. So, I think this is going to be a bigger fish that'll take a while to reel in.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Great to see linting and type checking requirements appearing optionally. Maybe a separate policy and a general timeline to move packages all packages over to requiring linting and type checks is in order?
I think a linting policy is reasonable but a type checking one would be too much, some packages have significant obstacles to doing this.
The modern tooling part is very opinionated and we're leaning toward
poetryin the package build guides from what I recall. So, I think this is going to be a bigger fish that'll take a while to reel in.
Likewise, especially since uv has taken over as a popular tool. This section is included mainly to reduce the number of rounds of feedback to newly submitted packages. It might be better to point people to a page discussing this in more detail since the issue is more nuanced than for the other tools.
Add optional items to the EiC checklist. These items are recommended to reduce the rounds of feedback given to packages before full review starts, though not necessary as they may be prohibitively difficult to implement for some packages. Closes #329.