Blacken

[benkiel]

This adds black to the to codebase

[benkiel]

@knutnergaard do you want to wait to merge this, or is it better to merge this now. Don't want to make things more complicated for your work

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 82.38806% with 59 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 78.30%. Comparing base (6446bb6) to head (d61a0b6).

Files	Patch %	Lines
Lib/fontParts/base/compatibility.py	17.64%	14 Missing ⚠️
Lib/fontParts/base/font.py	53.57%	13 Missing ⚠️
Lib/fontParts/base/contour.py	70.83%	7 Missing ⚠️
Lib/fontParts/base/glyph.py	85.00%	6 Missing ⚠️
Lib/fontParts/base/layer.py	50.00%	5 Missing ⚠️
Lib/fontParts/base/kerning.py	50.00%	4 Missing ⚠️
Lib/fontParts/ui.py	71.42%	4 Missing ⚠️
Lib/fontParts/base/info.py	50.00%	3 Missing ⚠️
Lib/fontParts/base/bPoint.py	85.71%	1 Missing ⚠️
Lib/fontParts/base/normalizers.py	98.83%	1 Missing ⚠️
... and 1 more

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #742   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   78.30%   78.30%           
=======================================
  Files          41       41           
  Lines        6094     6094           
  Branches     1017     1017           
=======================================
  Hits         4772     4772           
  Misses       1116     1116           
  Partials      206      206           

Files	Coverage Δ
Lib/fontParts/base/anchor.py	94.49% <100.00%> (ø)
Lib/fontParts/base/base.py	87.22% <100.00%> (ø)
Lib/fontParts/base/color.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
Lib/fontParts/base/component.py	96.44% <100.00%> (ø)
Lib/fontParts/base/deprecated.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
Lib/fontParts/base/features.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
Lib/fontParts/base/groups.py	89.79% <100.00%> (ø)
Lib/fontParts/base/guideline.py	89.28% <100.00%> (ø)
Lib/fontParts/base/image.py	98.26% <100.00%> (ø)
Lib/fontParts/base/lib.py	67.46% <ø> (ø)
... and 18 more

[knutnergaard]

@knutnergaard do you want to wait to merge this, or is it better to merge this now. Don't want to make things more complicated for your work

Looks like this has to take all changes in #739 into account to avoid having to do a lot of work over again.

I'm currently working on base/glyph.py, but I need some clarifications about what to do with optional arguments (#741) and the missing class members (#739). before continuing.

Once base/glyph.py is done, if you're able to take the provisional changes in #739 into account, you can merge this. Otherwise, I think this will have to wait until the documentation work is complete.

[alerque]

Black was a useful tool ... until ruff came along. If you're going to add either linting or code formatting to Python these days I would highly recommend using ruff instead.

[benkiel]

@alerque thanks, yes, that does look better