Replaced flake8/isort with ruff configuration #2499
Conversation
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
marksweb
reviewed
Feb 5, 2026
Co-authored-by: Mark Walker <[email protected]>
Contributor
Author
|
@marksweb |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Description:
This PR introduces a ruff.toml configuration to replace the existing flake8 and isort setup.
The configuration aims to be a 1-to-1 match with the current linting behavior:
-> Preserves existing ignores and file-specific exceptions (e.g. Django settings star imports).
-> Keeps line length and import ordering consistent with the current setup.
-> Avoids functional or formatting changes beyond what the existing tools already enforce.
This keeps linting behavior stable while consolidating configuration under Ruff, as discussed in #2446.