Repository navigation
Conversation
Lint ran only ruff format --check, so no lint rule ever ran in CI. Two open PRs (#2076 and #2354) each define Simulation.set_input; git merges them cleanly and the second definition silently replaces the first (UK hub notice 16). Run the rules pyproject.toml selects, then F811 (redefinition) and F821 (undefined name), which pyproject.toml ignores, on policyengine_uk. Neither has a finding there today; the one F811 on main is in a docs notebook. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
MaxGhenis
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 11, 2026
The same Lint step as #2355, in the pull request, main and release workflows this PR rewrites, so whichever of the two lands second keeps it. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
MaxGhenis
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 11, 2026
ruff formats and checks notebooks under docs/ and scripts/ as well as the package, so a documentation-only pull request can land a violation that then fails Lint for every later pull request: #1696 landed a notebook that failed the format check, and #1743 fixed it. Lint takes seconds, so run it on every pull request instead of only when the Changes job finds code. Found by the independent review of #2355. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Collaborator
Author
|
Hand-off to the UK hub from W2 of the Autumn Budget CI plan (session local_6c1ab389), per your notice 16.
|
MaxGhenis
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 11, 2026
…ot run #2355 adds ruff check --select F811,F821 to Lint, so 'CI checks formatting only' would go stale once it lands. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This was referenced Oct 12, 2026
This branch has not been deployed
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Part of workstream W2 of the Autumn Budget CI plan, raised by the UK hub (notice 16).
Why
The Lint job runs only
ruff format --check, so no lint rule runs in CI. Two open PRs, #2076 and #2354, each defineSimulation.set_input. Git merges them cleanly and the second definition silently replaces the first. That's pyflakes F811 (redefinition of an unused name), and nothing catches it.Change
In the Lint job of
pr_code_changes.yaml(pull requests) andcode_changes.yaml(main):pyproject.tomlalready selects, with its ignores. It passes on main today, so this adds no new failures.pyproject.tomlignores, on the package only. Neither has a finding there on main under ruff 0.15.7 (theuv.lockpin), 0.16.7 or 0.17.0 (what unpinneduvxresolves on CI now). The one F811 on main is in a docs notebook (docs/book/programs/gov/hmrc/income-tax.ipynb), which this leaves alone.Lint. No branch rule requires any check today, so nothing changes there. It matters once Publish only the policyengine-uk release files whose checks passed #2306's merge queue and required checks arrive.Checked
Independent Opus 5.5 review: APPROVE. It also showed that a three-way merge of Lift the benefit cap only for the support component and the people HB reg 75F and UC reg 83 name, and cap only the family's benefits #2076 and Give a simulation its identifiers for a year before its data #2354's
simulation.pygivesF811 ... set_input from line 268under this check.On main: both commands exit 0.
A probe module with two
def set_inputin one class fails the second command:F811 Redefinition of unused set_input from line 2.actionlint, with shellcheck, is clean.
Changelog fragment.
Interaction: #2306 (W2 release integrity) rewrites these workflow files and already carries this identical step in all three of them. If this lands first, #2306's rebase conflicts in each Lint hunk; take #2306's side. If #2306 lands first, close this PR.
Known limits
From the review:
.github,pyproject.tomloruv.lockchange, butruff check .and the existingruff format --check .also cover notebooks underdocs/andscripts/. A docs-only PR can therefore land a violation that later code PRs trip over, as Suppress warnings in validation notebook (#587) #1696 did with formatting. Publish only the policyengine-uk release files whose checks passed #2306 fixes this by running Lint on every PR.uvx ruffis unpinned, like the format step. Pinning it is a possible follow-up.Simulation/Microsimulationis stricter for those two classes.axiom: n/a: CI tooling
🤖 Generated with Claude Code