Skip to content

Conversation

@mkuehbach
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The software pynxtools that other build it, therefore more leaning towards the passive interpretation

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

ok

site_description: |
The documentation for the {{cookiecutter.__package_name}} plugin.
site_author: The FAIRmat authors
site_author: The NOMAD Authors
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

That flabbergasted me, typically in many other places in pynxtools official plugins we use the "NOMAD" authors, also in the license, people sure need to change this is they dont develop an official fairmat plugin

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Probably, we can just go with {{cookiecutter.author_name}}, then it is auto-adjusted?

Suggested change
site_author: The NOMAD Authors
site_author: {{cookiecutter.author_name}}

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

For pytest.yml we run a matrix for pylint we havent done this yet but makes sense

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I wanted to avoid this because ruff anyway checks the pyproject file for the allowed python version and adjusts its behavior accordingly. An example is that once we dropped python<3.10, the default notation in ruff automatically changed from Optional[str] to str | None, which was introduced in python 3.10. So I think it's fine to use a single python version here.

@mkuehbach mkuehbach requested a review from lukaspie December 1, 2025 15:50
Copy link
Contributor

@lukaspie lukaspie left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Just a couple suggestions

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.

4 participants