Skip to content

Update Black to 2026 Stable Style#5335

Merged
jperson1 merged 9 commits into
mainfrom
jp/update-black
Jan 26, 2026
Merged

Update Black to 2026 Stable Style#5335
jperson1 merged 9 commits into
mainfrom
jp/update-black

Conversation

@jperson1
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Update Black to 2026 Stable Style

What's the Big Idea?

Black is our primary Python linter. Every January, any breaking changes are included in the yearly stable release. See 26.1.0 here.

There is one rule change that affects a huge amount of our files. It always forces one blank line after import statements. We have historically always used two. So, there's a lot of one line changes here. Please see some of the discussion from the offending PR here, for a little more context on the why of this change.

TL;DR: Black focuses on consistency over malleability (and readability sometimes). They hadn't made a decision on the number of lines post-import, and now they have. So, here it is. I'm inclined to follow it, in the name of keeping all open-source (us) projects in line with each other.

This does lead many files to a strange-ish pattern. Imports -> One line -> Logger/assignment -> Two lines -> Function. Since functions are surrounded by two lines, this is consistent with the rules. It just looks weird after all this time, when the logger is closer to the imports instead of being quarantined on both sides.

Other Changes:

  1. There's a multi-line string fix. This is not really impactful.
  2. Left-hand multi-assignments have had their unnecessary parenthesis removed. That's a fun sentence to say.

PR Checklist: Submitter

  • Link to an issue if possible. If there’s no issue, describe what your branch does. Even if there is an issue, a brief description in the PR is still useful.
  • List any special steps reviewers have to follow to test the PR. For example, adding a local environment variable, creating a local test file, etc.
  • For extra credit, submit a screen recording like this one.
  • Make sure you’ve merged main into your branch shortly before creating the PR. (You should also be merging main into your branch regularly during development.)
  • Make sure you’ve accounted for any migrations. When you’re about to create the PR, bring up the application locally and then run git status | grep migrations. If there are any results, you probably need to add them to the branch for the PR. Your PR should have only one new migration file for each of the component apps, except in rare circumstances; you may need to delete some and re-run python manage.py makemigrations to reduce the number to one. (Also, unless in exceptional circumstances, your PR should not delete any migration files.)
  • Make sure that whatever feature you’re adding has tests that cover the feature. This includes test coverage to make sure that the previous workflow still works, if applicable.
  • Make sure the full-submission.cy.js Cypress test passes, if applicable.
  • Do manual testing locally. Our tests are not good enough yet to allow us to skip this step. If that’s not applicable for some reason, check this box.
  • Verify that no Git surgery was necessary, or, if it was necessary at any point, repeat the testing after it’s finished.
  • Once a PR is merged, keep an eye on it until it’s deployed to dev, and do enough testing on dev to verify that it deployed successfully, the feature works as expected, and the happy path for the broad feature area (such as submission) still works.
  • Ensure that prior to merging, the working branch is up to date with main and the terraform plan is what you expect.

PR Checklist: Reviewer

  • Pull the branch to your local environment and run make docker-clean; make docker-first-run && docker compose up; then run docker compose exec web /bin/bash -c "python manage.py test"
  • Manually test out the changes locally, or check this box to verify that it wasn’t applicable in this case.
  • Check that the PR has appropriate tests. Look out for changes in HTML/JS/JSON Schema logic that may need to be captured in Python tests even though the logic isn’t in Python.
  • Verify that no Git surgery is necessary at any point (such as during a merge party), or, if it was, repeat the testing after it’s finished.

The larger the PR, the stricter we should be about these points.

Pre Merge Checklist: Merger

  • Ensure that prior to approving, the terraform plan is what we expect it to be. -/+ resource "null_resource" "cors_header" should be destroying and recreating its self and ~ resource "cloudfoundry_app" "clamav_api" might be updating its sha256 for the fac-file-scanner and fac-av-${ENV} by default.
  • Ensure that the branch is up to date with main.
  • Ensure that a terraform plan has been recently generated for the pull request.

@github-actions
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

github-actions Bot commented Jan 26, 2026

Terraform plan for meta

No changes. Your infrastructure matches the configuration.
No changes. Your infrastructure matches the configuration.

Terraform has compared your real infrastructure against your configuration
and found no differences, so no changes are needed.

✅ Plan applied in Deploy to Development and Meta Environments #1092

@github-actions
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

github-actions Bot commented Jan 26, 2026

Terraform plan for dev

Plan: 1 to add, 0 to change, 1 to destroy.
Terraform used the selected providers to generate the following execution
plan. Resource actions are indicated with the following symbols:
-/+ destroy and then create replacement

Terraform will perform the following actions:

  # module.dev.module.cors.null_resource.cors_header must be replaced
-/+ resource "null_resource" "cors_header" {
!~      id       = "*******************" -> (known after apply)
!~      triggers = { # forces replacement
!~          "always_run" = "2026-01-26T19:28:02Z" -> (known after apply)
        }
    }

Plan: 1 to add, 0 to change, 1 to destroy.

✅ Plan applied in Deploy to Development and Meta Environments #1092

@jperson1
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Everything seems to be in order. Undrafting.

@jperson1 jperson1 marked this pull request as ready for review January 26, 2026 17:16
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@ccampbell-fearless ccampbell-fearless left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@phildominguez-gsa phildominguez-gsa left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks fine, and I ran full-submission for fun

@github-actions
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Code Coverage

Package Line Rate Branch Rate Health
. 100% 100%
api 98% 86%
api.serializers 97% 88%
api.views 91% 100%
audit 95% 81%
audit.cross_validation 97% 86%
audit.fixtures 84% 50%
audit.formlib 36% 0%
audit.intakelib 89% 83%
audit.intakelib.checks 92% 85%
audit.intakelib.common 98% 82%
audit.intakelib.transforms 100% 95%
audit.management.commands 78% 17%
audit.migrations 100% 100%
audit.models 91% 68%
audit.templatetags 100% 100%
audit.views 72% 49%
census_historical_migration 96% 65%
census_historical_migration.migrations 100% 100%
census_historical_migration.sac_general_lib 92% 84%
census_historical_migration.transforms 95% 90%
census_historical_migration.workbooklib 68% 69%
config 78% 37%
curation 98% 100%
curation.curationlib 88% 72%
curation.migrations 100% 100%
dissemination 89% 70%
dissemination.analytics 27% 0%
dissemination.forms 80% 30%
dissemination.migrations 97% 25%
dissemination.models 100% 100%
dissemination.report_generation 21% 0%
dissemination.report_generation.excel 32% 0%
dissemination.searchlib 62% 45%
dissemination.templatetags 48% 0%
dissemination.views 67% 44%
djangooidc 53% 38%
djangooidc.tests 100% 94%
report_submission 100% 96%
report_submission.migrations 100% 100%
report_submission.templatetags 74% 100%
report_submission.views 78% 61%
support 94% 75%
support.migrations 100% 100%
support.models 90% 50%
tools 98% 50%
users 95% 86%
users.fixtures 100% 83%
users.management 100% 100%
users.management.commands 100% 100%
users.migrations 100% 100%
Summary 88% (21837 / 24718) 69% (2681 / 3900)

Minimum allowed line rate is 85%

@jperson1 jperson1 added this pull request to the merge queue Jan 26, 2026
Merged via the queue into main with commit 5c3a85a Jan 26, 2026
18 checks passed
@jperson1 jperson1 deleted the jp/update-black branch January 26, 2026 20:05
jperson1 added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 28, 2026
github-merge-queue Bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 28, 2026
* Revert "Update Black to 2026 Stable Style (#5335)"

This reverts commit 5c3a85a.

* Revert "Rolling requirements update (#5325)"

This reverts commit 7780bfe.
jperson1 added a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 11, 2026
* Updating black. Will break the linters.

* /api black update

* /audit black update

* /census_historical_migration black update

* /curation black update

* /dissemination black update

* /report_submission black update

* ./ and everything else black update
@jperson1 jperson1 mentioned this pull request Feb 11, 2026
18 tasks
github-merge-queue Bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 20, 2026
* Update Black to 2026 Stable Style (#5335)

* Updating black. Will break the linters.

* /api black update

* /audit black update

* /census_historical_migration black update

* /curation black update

* /dissemination black update

* /report_submission black update

* ./ and everything else black update

* `black` should exclude the `.venv` directory
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants