Skip to content

Partial pretty format of LALPulsar

Description

The MR applies the pretty-formatting build rules from !2213 (merged) to some codes in LALPulsar, specifically:

  • All Python codes.
    • I first had to use the reindent.py script (part of Python, though usually packaged separately) to convert Python code using non-4-space indents to 4-space indents. I found black didn't do this as well, because it's more conservative about e.g. changing whitespace inside """strings""". This required some manual fix-ups afterwards.
    • Some manual fix-ups were also required for strings with \ line continuation characters.
  • A selection of C codes in lib/, where a) I don't believe are under any current development, and b) we'd want to avoid any major conflicts (e.g. ComputeFstat) so I wanted to get this done now.
  • All C codes in test/.
  • All C codes in bin/ apart from bin/Hough/, bin/HoughFstat/, and bin/Fscan/, which are currently under development.

There are also a few minor changes to the build rules (cf. !2213 (merged)):

  • Fix the version of black used in the lint:pretty CI job. Apparently black formatting rules do change over time (though their policy is no more frequently than yearly). Fixing the version will allow local developers to replicate the lint:pretty job, and stop the job failing when a new version of black with different formatting comes out on pip.
  • Include CUDA .cu files in the list of C sources which are pretty-formatted.

API Changes and Justification

Backwards Compatible Changes

  • This change does not modify any class/function/struct/type definitions in a public C header file or any Python class/function definitions
  • This change adds new classes/functions/structs/types to a public C header file or Python module

Backwards Incompatible Changes

  • This change modifies an existing class/function/struct/type definition in a public C header file or Python module
  • This change removes an existing class/function/struct/type from a public C header file or Python module

If any of the Backwards Incompatible check boxes are ticked please provide a justification why this change is necessary and why it needs to be done in a backwards incompatible way.

Review Status

Please provide details on any reviews related to this change and and the associated reviewers.

Merge request reports