Skip to content

[chore] Stricter ruff rules#282

Open
fjosw wants to merge 4 commits intodevelopfrom
ruff_rules_strict
Open

[chore] Stricter ruff rules#282
fjosw wants to merge 4 commits intodevelopfrom
ruff_rules_strict

Conversation

@fjosw
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

@fjosw fjosw commented Apr 20, 2026

This PR imposes stricter ruff rules and fixes the parts which raise errors now. Main changes:

@fjosw fjosw marked this pull request as ready for review April 20, 2026 17:49
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@jkuhl-uni jkuhl-uni left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

lgtm

@jkuhl-uni
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Thank you for all the work on the code style!
I think having these slightly stricter rules makes sense. I have to familiarize myself with some of the reasoning behind the ruff rules, but I think it is a good idea overall.

@s-kuberski
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Hi! Thanks for taking the time to implement this! I am still in the process of looking through the changes.

I was wondering about the change of the handling of random numbers. I understand that switching to np.random.default_rng() is considered to be the proper modern solution. However, I am asking myself if this change, hidden inside the large number of other changes, could lead to unexpected behavior.

As I understand it, changing the numpy random seed will not affect the state of the random number generator anymore, right? So there won't be any way to fix the seed in the random number generator in the future, when its initialization is hidden in the module. Could this lead to problems?

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