• 
      

    Clean up documentation in the HostingService class

    Review Request #8913 — Created April 21, 2017 and submitted

    Information

    Review Board
    release-2.5.x

    Reviewers

    This patch brings the rest of hostingsvcs.service into line with our
    documentation practices, e.g., module docstrings, PEP 257, etc.

    Built the docs and looked through them.

    Description From Last Updated

    Missing period.

    chipx86chipx86

    I'd say "The repository the key must be associated with."

    chipx86chipx86

    We're not adding the key.

    chipx86chipx86

    These are written more like: "An error occurred during communication with the hosting service." Same format below.

    chipx86chipx86

    These are only ignored in the default implementation. There's much more that's included (and that we should probably document and …

    chipx86chipx86

    I wouldn't say "if applicable." This should instead be elaborated on in the description.

    chipx86chipx86

    "from"

    chipx86chipx86

    Extra blank line.

    chipx86chipx86

    "The" We may want to use a numbered list for these.

    chipx86chipx86

    "Return"

    chipx86chipx86

    "Return"

    chipx86chipx86

    Should specify what this means. Otherwise it sounds like it's perhaps a database ID. It's actually specific to the hosting …

    chipx86chipx86

    "The provided plan is not valid for the hosting service."

    chipx86chipx86

    I wouldn't say "in question." Instead, something more like what get_bug_tracker_field has.

    chipx86chipx86

    No indentation.

    chipx86chipx86

    Same suggestion as earlier.

    chipx86chipx86

    This is missing a Returns block.

    chipx86chipx86

    Returns: section?

    daviddavid

    Returns: section? I know that this implementation doesn't return, but it would be nice to list it so subclassers know …

    daviddavid

    Raises?

    daviddavid

    W293 blank line contains whitespace

    reviewbotreviewbot

    W293 blank line contains whitespace

    reviewbotreviewbot

    W293 blank line contains whitespace

    reviewbotreviewbot

    W293 blank line contains whitespace

    reviewbotreviewbot

    W293 blank line contains whitespace

    reviewbotreviewbot

    W293 blank line contains whitespace

    reviewbotreviewbot

    W293 blank line contains whitespace

    reviewbotreviewbot
    brennie
    chipx86
    1. 
        
    2. reviewboard/hostingsvcs/service.py (Diff revision 2)
       
       
      Show all issues

      Missing period.

    3. reviewboard/hostingsvcs/service.py (Diff revision 2)
       
       
      Show all issues

      I'd say "The repository the key must be associated with."

    4. reviewboard/hostingsvcs/service.py (Diff revision 2)
       
       
      Show all issues

      We're not adding the key.

    5. reviewboard/hostingsvcs/service.py (Diff revision 2)
       
       
       
      Show all issues

      These are written more like: "An error occurred during communication with the hosting service."

      Same format below.

    6. reviewboard/hostingsvcs/service.py (Diff revision 2)
       
       
       
       
       
       
      Show all issues

      These are only ignored in the default implementation. There's much more that's included (and that we should probably document and provide in the signature).

      See the call to hosting_service.check_repository in reviewboard/scmtools/forms.py.

    7. reviewboard/hostingsvcs/service.py (Diff revision 2)
       
       
      Show all issues

      I wouldn't say "if applicable." This should instead be elaborated on in the description.

    8. reviewboard/hostingsvcs/service.py (Diff revision 2)
       
       
      Show all issues

      "from"

    9. reviewboard/hostingsvcs/service.py (Diff revision 2)
       
       
       
       
      Show all issues

      Extra blank line.

    10. reviewboard/hostingsvcs/service.py (Diff revision 2)
       
       
       
      Show all issues

      "The"

      We may want to use a numbered list for these.

    11. reviewboard/hostingsvcs/service.py (Diff revision 2)
       
       
      Show all issues

      "Return"

    12. reviewboard/hostingsvcs/service.py (Diff revision 2)
       
       
      Show all issues

      "Return"

    13. reviewboard/hostingsvcs/service.py (Diff revision 2)
       
       
      Show all issues

      Should specify what this means. Otherwise it sounds like it's perhaps a database ID. It's actually specific to the hosting service in question, and should be opaque to the caller.

    14. reviewboard/hostingsvcs/service.py (Diff revision 2)
       
       
      Show all issues

      "The provided plan is not valid for the hosting service."

    15. reviewboard/hostingsvcs/service.py (Diff revision 2)
       
       
      Show all issues

      I wouldn't say "in question." Instead, something more like what get_bug_tracker_field has.

    16. reviewboard/hostingsvcs/service.py (Diff revision 2)
       
       
       
      Show all issues

      No indentation.

    17. reviewboard/hostingsvcs/service.py (Diff revision 2)
       
       
      Show all issues

      Same suggestion as earlier.

    18. reviewboard/hostingsvcs/service.py (Diff revision 2)
       
       
       
      Show all issues

      This is missing a Returns block.

    19. 
        
    brennie
    brennie
    david
    1. 
        
    2. reviewboard/hostingsvcs/service.py (Diff revision 4)
       
       
       
      Show all issues

      Returns: section?

    3. reviewboard/hostingsvcs/service.py (Diff revision 4)
       
       
      Show all issues

      Returns: section? I know that this implementation doesn't return, but it would be nice to list it so subclassers know what to do.

    4. reviewboard/hostingsvcs/service.py (Diff revision 4)
       
       
      Show all issues

      Raises?

    5. 
        
    brennie
    Review request changed
    Change Summary:

    Address David's issues

    Checks run (1 failed, 1 succeeded)

    flake8 failed.
    JSHint passed.

    flake8

    brennie
    brennie
    Review request changed

    Checks run (1 failed, 1 succeeded)

    flake8 failed.
    JSHint passed.

    flake8

    brennie
    david
    1. Ship It!
    2. 
        
    brennie
    Review request changed
    Status:
    Completed
    Change Summary:
    Pushed to release-2.5.x (767821d)