T201/T203 Improve print/pprint docs #18130
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
* discuss legitimate uses like CLI * discuss how to log
|
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
These rules are great when referring to adhoc debug print statements, but it's worth flagging up that there are absolutely fine legitimate uses of
print()andpprint()and that the rule applies to debugging more or less exclusively.It's not easy to come up with a simple, minimal example of what using
logginglooks like; I'm not convinced this one is great.I'm not sure this is quite right, but I think there's a kernel of something better than what we've got, which is important because this appears to becoming the defacto reference for "why print in production code is bad"
Test Plan
It hasn't been. But I did check the python code fragments didn't error on ruff.