Best practices¶

These checks ensure that you follow the best practices.

The source for these best practices is hidden inside countless hours we have spent debugging software or reviewing it.

How do we find inspiration for new rules? We find some ugly code during code reviews and audits. Then we forbid to use this bad code forever. So, this error will never return to our codebase.

Summary¶

`WrongMagicCommentViolation`	Restricts to use several control (or magic) comments.
`WrongDocCommentViolation`	Forbids to use empty doc comments (`#:`).
`OveruseOfNoqaCommentViolation`	Forbids to use too many `# noqa` comments.
`WrongModuleMetadataViolation`	Forbids to have some module level variables.
`EmptyModuleViolation`	Forbids to have empty modules.
`InitModuleHasLogicViolation`	Forbids to have logic inside `__init__` module.
`WrongKeywordViolation`	Forbids to use some keywords from `python`.
`WrongFunctionCallViolation`	Forbids to call some built-in functions.
`FutureImportViolation`	Forbids to use `__future__` imports.
`RaiseNotImplementedViolation`	Forbids to use `NotImplemented` error.
`BaseExceptionViolation`	Forbids to use `BaseException` exception.
`BooleanPositionalArgumentViolation`	Forbids to pass booleans as non-keyword parameters.
`NestedFunctionViolation`	Forbids to have nested functions.
`NestedClassViolation`	Forbids to use nested classes.
`MagicNumberViolation`	Forbids to use magic numbers in your code.
`StaticMethodViolation`	Forbids to use `@staticmethod` decorator.
`BadMagicMethodViolation`	Forbids to use some magic methods.
`NestedImportViolation`	Forbids to have nested imports in functions.
`RedundantLoopElseViolation`	Forbids to use `else` without `break` in a loop.
`RedundantFinallyViolation`	Forbids to use `finally` in `try` block without `except` block.
`ReassigningVariableToItselfViolation`	Forbids to assign variable to itself.
`YieldInsideInitViolation`	Forbids to use `yield` inside of `__init__` method.
`ProtectedModuleViolation`	Forbids to import protected modules.
`ProtectedAttributeViolation`	Forbids to use protected attributes and methods.
`LambdaInsideLoopViolation`	Forbids to use `lambda` inside loops.
`UnreachableCodeViolation`	Forbids to have unreachable code.
`StatementHasNoEffectViolation`	Forbids to have statements that do nothing.
`MultipleAssignmentsViolation`	Forbids to have statements that do nothing.
`IncorrectUnpackingViolation`	Forbids to have statements that do nothing.
`DuplicateExceptionViolation`	Forbids to have the same exception class in multiple `except` blocks.
`YieldInComprehensionViolation`	Forbids to have `yield` keyword inside comprehensions.
`NonUniqueItemsInSetViolation`	Forbids to have duplicate items in `set` literals.
`BaseExceptionSubclassViolation`	Forbids to have duplicate items in `set` literals.
`SimplifiableIfViolation`	Forbids to have simplifiable `if` conditions.
`IncorrectClassBodyContentViolation`	Forbids to use incorrect nodes inside `class` definitions.
`MethodWithoutArgumentsViolation`	Forbids to have methods without any arguments.
`IncorrectBaseClassViolation`	Forbids to have methods without any arguments.
`IncorrectSlotsViolation`	Forbids to have incorrect `__slots__` definition.
`IncorrectSuperCallViolation`	Forbids to use `super()` with parameters or outside of methods.
`RedundantReturningElseViolation`	Forbids to use redundant `else` cases in returning functions.
`TryExceptMultipleReturnPathViolation`	Forbids to use multiple `return` path with `try` / `except` case.

Comments¶

class WrongMagicCommentViolation(node=None, text=None)[source]¶

Bases: wemake_python_styleguide.violations.base.SimpleViolation

Restricts to use several control (or magic) comments.

We do not allow to use:

# noqa comment without specified violations
# type: some_type comments to specify a type for typed_ast

Reasoning:: We cover several different use-cases in a single rule. # noqa comment is restricted because it can hide other violations. # type: some_type comment is restricted because we can already use type annotations instead.
Solution:: Use # noqa comments with specified error types. Use type annotations to specify types.

We still allow to use # type: ignore comment. Since sometimes it is totally required.

Example:

# Correct:
type = MyClass.get_type()  # noqa: A001
coordinate: int = 10
some.int_field = 'text'  # type: ignore

number: int
for number in some_untyped_iterable():
    ...

# Wrong:
type = MyClass.get_type()  # noqa
coordinate = 10  # type: int

New in version 0.1.0.

code = 400¶

error_template = 'Found wrong magic comment: {0}'¶

class WrongDocCommentViolation(node, text=None)[source]¶

Bases: wemake_python_styleguide.violations.base.TokenizeViolation

Forbids to use empty doc comments (#:).

Reasoning:: Doc comments are used to provide a documentation. But supplying empty doc comments breaks this use-case. It is unclear why they can be used with no contents.
Solution:: Add some documentation to this comment. Or remove it.

Empty doc comments are not caught by the default pycodestyle checks.

Example:

# Correct:
#: List of allowed names:
NAMES_WHITELIST = ['feature', 'bug', 'research']

# Wrong:
#:
NAMES_WHITELIST = ['feature', 'bug', 'research']

New in version 0.1.0.

code = 401¶

error_template = 'Found wrong doc comment'¶

class OveruseOfNoqaCommentViolation(node=None, text=None)[source]¶

Bases: wemake_python_styleguide.violations.base.SimpleViolation

Forbids to use too many # noqa comments.

We check this count on a per-module basis. We use 10 as a default value.

Reasoning:: Having too many # noqa comments with make your code less readable and clearly indicates that there’s something wrong with it.
Solution:: Refactor your code to much the style. Or use a config file to switch off some checks.

New in version 0.7.0.

error_template = 'Found `noqa` comments overuse: {0}'¶

code = 402¶

Modules¶

class WrongModuleMetadataViolation(node, text=None)[source]¶

Bases: wemake_python_styleguide.violations.base.ASTViolation

Forbids to have some module level variables.

Reasoning:: We discourage using module variables like __author__, because code should not contain any metadata.
Solution:: Place all the metadata in setup.py, setup.cfg, or pyproject.toml. Use proper docstrings and packaging classifiers. Use pkg_resources if you need to import this data into your app.

See MODULE_METADATA_VARIABLES_BLACKLIST for full list of bad names.

Example:

# Wrong:
__author__ = 'Nikita Sobolev'
__version__ = 0.1.2

New in version 0.1.0.

error_template = 'Found wrong metadata variable: {0}'¶

code = 410¶

class EmptyModuleViolation(node=None, text=None)[source]¶

Bases: wemake_python_styleguide.violations.base.SimpleViolation

Forbids to have empty modules.

Reasoning:

Why is it even there? Do not pollute your project with empty files.

Solution:

If you have an empty module there are two ways to handle that:

delete it
drop some documentation in it, so you will explain why it is there

New in version 0.1.0.

error_template = 'Found empty module'¶

code = 411¶

class InitModuleHasLogicViolation(node=None, text=None)[source]¶

Bases: wemake_python_styleguide.violations.base.SimpleViolation

Forbids to have logic inside __init__ module.

Reasoning:

If you have logic inside the __init__ module it means several things:

you are keeping some outdated stuff there, you need to refactor
you are placing this logic into the wrong file, just create another one
you are doing some dark magic, and you should not do that

Solution:

Put your code in other modules.

However, we allow to have some contents inside the __init__ module:

comments, since they are dropped before AST comes in play
docs string, because sometimes it is required to state something

It is also fine when you have different users that use your code. And you do not want to break everything for them. In this case this rule can be configured.

Configuration:: This rule is configurable with --i-control-code. Default: True

New in version 0.1.0.

error_template = 'Found `__init__.py` module with logic'¶

code = 412¶

Builtins¶

class WrongKeywordViolation(node, text=None)[source]¶

Bases: wemake_python_styleguide.violations.base.ASTViolation

Forbids to use some keywords from python.

Reasoning:: We believe that some keywords are anti-patterns. They promote bad-practices like global and pass, or just not user-friendly like del.
Solution:: Solutions differ from keyword to keyword. pass should be replaced with docstring or contextlib.suppress. del should be replaced with specialized methods like .pop(). global and nonlocal usages should be refactored.

Example:

# Wrong:
pass
del
nonlocal
global

New in version 0.1.0.

error_template = 'Found wrong keyword: {0}'¶

code = 420¶

class WrongFunctionCallViolation(node, text=None)[source]¶

Bases: wemake_python_styleguide.violations.base.ASTViolation

Forbids to call some built-in functions.

Reasoning:: Some functions are only suitable for very specific use cases, we forbid to use them in a free manner.

See FUNCTIONS_BLACKLIST for the full list of blacklisted functions.

New in version 0.1.0.

error_template = 'Found wrong function call: {0}'¶

code = 421¶

class FutureImportViolation(node, text=None)[source]¶

Bases: wemake_python_styleguide.violations.base.ASTViolation

Forbids to use __future__ imports.

Reasoning:: Almost all __future__ imports are legacy python2 compatibility tools that are no longer required.
Solution:: Remove them. Drop python2 support.

Except, there are some new ones for python4 support. See FUTURE_IMPORTS_WHITELIST for the full list of allowed future imports.

Example:

# Correct:
from __future__ import annotations

# Wrong:
from __future__ import print_function

New in version 0.1.0.

error_template = 'Found future import: {0}'¶

code = 422¶

class RaiseNotImplementedViolation(node, text=None)[source]¶

Bases: wemake_python_styleguide.violations.base.ASTViolation

Forbids to use NotImplemented error.

Reasoning:: These two violations look so similar. But, these violations have different use cases. Use cases of NotImplemented is too limited to be generally available.
Solution:: Use NotImplementedError.

Example:

# Correct:
raise NotImplementedError('To be done')

# Wrong:
raise NotImplemented

New in version 0.1.0.

error_template = 'Found raise NotImplemented'¶

code = 423¶

class BaseExceptionViolation(node, text=None)[source]¶

Bases: wemake_python_styleguide.violations.base.ASTViolation

Forbids to use BaseException exception.

Reasoning:: We can silence system exit and keyboard interrupt with this exception handler. It is almost the same as raw except: block.
Solution:: Handle Exception, KeyboardInterrupt, GeneratorExit, and SystemExit separately. Do not use the plain except: keyword.

Example:

# Correct:
except Exception as ex: ...

# Wrong:
except BaseException as ex: ...

New in version 0.3.0.

error_template = 'Found except `BaseException`'¶

code = 424¶

class BooleanPositionalArgumentViolation(node, text=None)[source]¶

Bases: wemake_python_styleguide.violations.base.ASTViolation

Forbids to pass booleans as non-keyword parameters.

Reasoning:: Passing boolean as regular positional parameters is very non-descriptive. It is almost impossible to tell, what does this parameter means. And you almost always have to look up the implementation to tell what is going on.
Solution:: Pass booleans as keywords only. This will help you to save extra context on what’s going on.

Example:

# Correct:
UsersRepository.update(cache=True)

# Wrong:
UsersRepository.update(True)

New in version 0.6.0.

error_template = 'Found boolean non-keyword argument: {0}'¶

code = 425¶

Design¶

class NestedFunctionViolation(node, text=None)[source]¶

Bases: wemake_python_styleguide.violations.base.ASTViolation

Forbids to have nested functions.

Reasoning:: Nesting functions is a bad practice. It is hard to test them, it is hard then to separate them. People tend to overuse closures, so it’s hard to manage the dataflow.
Solution:: Just write flat functions, there’s no need to nest them. Pass parameters as normal arguments, do not use closures. Until you need them for decorators or factories.

We also disallow to nest lambda and async functions.

See NESTED_FUNCTIONS_WHITELIST for the whole list of whitelisted names.

Example:

# Correct:
def do_some(): ...
def other(): ...

# Wrong:
def do_some():
    def inner():
        ...

New in version 0.1.0.

error_template = 'Found nested function: {0}'¶

code = 430¶

class NestedClassViolation(node, text=None)[source]¶

Bases: wemake_python_styleguide.violations.base.ASTViolation

Forbids to use nested classes.

Reasoning:: Nested classes are really hard to manage. You can not even create an instance of this class in many cases. Testing them is also really hard.
Solution:: Just write flat classes, there’s no need nest them. If you are nesting classes inside a function for parametrization, then you will probably need to use different design (or metaclasses).

See NESTED_CLASSES_WHITELIST for the full list of whitelisted names.

Example:

# Correct:
class Some(object): ...
class Other(object): ...

# Wrong:
class Some(object):
    class Inner(object):
        ...

New in version 0.1.0.

error_template = 'Found nested class: {0}'¶

code = 431¶

class MagicNumberViolation(node, text=None)[source]¶

Bases: wemake_python_styleguide.violations.base.ASTViolation

Forbids to use magic numbers in your code.

What we call a “magic number”? Well, it is actually any number that appears in your code out of nowhere. Like 42. Or 0.32.

Reasoning:: It is very hard to remember what these numbers actually mean. Why were they used? Should they ever be changed? Or are they eternal like 3.14?
Solution:: Give these numbers a name! Move them to a separate variable, giving more context to the reader. And by moving things into new variables you will trigger other complexity checks.

Example:

# Correct:
price_in_euro = 3.33  # could be changed later
total = get_items_from_cart() * price_in_euro

# Wrong:
total = get_items_from_cart() * 3.33

What are numbers that we exclude from this check? Any numbers that are assigned to a variable, array, dictionary, or keyword arguments inside a function. int numbers that are in range [-10, 10] and some other common numbers, that are defined in MAGIC_NUMBERS_WHITELIST

New in version 0.1.0.

code = 432¶

error_template = 'Found magic number: {0}'¶

class StaticMethodViolation(node, text=None)[source]¶

Bases: wemake_python_styleguide.violations.base.ASTViolation

Forbids to use @staticmethod decorator.

Reasoning:: Static methods are not required to be inside the class. Because they even do not have access to the current instance.
Solution:: Use instance methods, @classmethod, or functions instead.

New in version 0.1.0.

error_template = 'Found using `@staticmethod`'¶

code = 433¶

class BadMagicMethodViolation(node, text=None)[source]¶

Bases: wemake_python_styleguide.violations.base.ASTViolation

Forbids to use some magic methods.

Reasoning:: We forbid to use magic methods related to the forbidden language parts. Likewise, we forbid to use del keyword, so we forbid to use all magic methods related to it.
Solution:: Refactor your code to use custom methods instead. It will give more context to your app.

See MAGIC_METHODS_BLACKLIST for the full blacklist of the magic methods.

New in version 0.1.0.

error_template = 'Found using restricted magic method: {0}'¶

code = 434¶

class NestedImportViolation(node, text=None)[source]¶

Bases: wemake_python_styleguide.violations.base.ASTViolation

Forbids to have nested imports in functions.

Reasoning:: Usually, nested imports are used to fix the import cycle. So, nested imports show that there’s an issue with your design.
Solution:: You don’t need nested imports, you need to refactor your code. Introduce a new module or find another way to do what you want to do. Rethink how your layered architecture should look like.

Example:

# Correct:
from my_module import some_function

def some(): ...

# Wrong:
def some():
    from my_module import some_function

New in version 0.1.0.

error_template = 'Found nested import'¶

code = 435¶

class RedundantLoopElseViolation(node, text=None)[source]¶

Bases: wemake_python_styleguide.violations.base.ASTViolation

Forbids to use else without break in a loop.

We use the same logic for for and while loops.

Reasoning:: When there’s no break keyword in loop’s body it means that else will always be called. This rule will reduce complexity, improve readability, and protect from possible errors.
Solution:: Refactor your else case logic to be inside the loop’s body. Or right after it.

Example:

# Correct:
for letter in 'abc':
    if letter == 'b':
        break
else:
    print('"b" is not found')

for letter in 'abc':
    print(letter)
print('always called')

# Wrong:
for letter in 'abc':
    print(letter)
else:
    print('always called')

New in version 0.3.0.

error_template = 'Found `else` in a loop without `break`'¶

code = 436¶

class RedundantFinallyViolation(node, text=None)[source]¶

Bases: wemake_python_styleguide.violations.base.ASTViolation

Forbids to use finally in try block without except block.

Reasoning:: This rule will reduce complexity and improve readability.
Solution:: Refactor your try logic. Replace the try-finally statement with a with statement.

Example:

# Correct:
with open("filename") as f:
    f.write(...)

# Wrong:
try:
    f = open("filename")
    f.write(...)
finally:
    f.close()

New in version 0.3.0.

error_template = 'Found `finally` in `try` block without `except`'¶

code = 437¶

class ReassigningVariableToItselfViolation(node, text=None)[source]¶

Bases: wemake_python_styleguide.violations.base.ASTViolation

Forbids to assign variable to itself.

Reasoning:: There is no need to do that. Generally, it is an indication of some errors or just dead code.

Example:

# Correct:
some = some + 1
x_coord, y_coord = y_coord, x_coord

# Wrong:
some = some
x_coord, y_coord = x_coord, y_coord

New in version 0.3.0.

error_template = 'Found reassigning variable to itself'¶

code = 438¶

class YieldInsideInitViolation(node, text=None)[source]¶

Bases: wemake_python_styleguide.violations.base.ASTViolation

Forbids to use yield inside of __init__ method.

Reasoning:: __init__ should be used to initialize new objects. It shouldn’t yield anything because it should return None by the convention.

Example:

 # Correct:
class Example(object):
    def __init__(self):
        self._public_items_count = 0

# Wrong:
class Example(object):
    def __init__(self):
        yield 10

New in version 0.3.0.

error_template = 'Found `yield` inside `__init__` method'¶

code = 439¶

class ProtectedModuleViolation(node, text=None)[source]¶

Bases: wemake_python_styleguide.violations.base.ASTViolation

Forbids to import protected modules.

Reasoning:: When importing protected modules we break a contract that authors of this module enforce. This way we are not respecting encapsulation and it may break our code at any moment.
Solution:: Do not import anything from protected modules. Respect the encapsulation.

Example:

# Correct:
from some.public.module import FooClass

# Wrong:
import _compat
from some._protected.module import BarClass
from some.module import _protected

New in version 0.3.0.

error_template = 'Found protected module import'¶

code = 440¶

class ProtectedAttributeViolation(node, text=None)[source]¶

Bases: wemake_python_styleguide.violations.base.ASTViolation

Forbids to use protected attributes and methods.

Reasoning:: When using protected attributes and method we break a contract that authors of this class enforce. This way we are not respecting encapsulation and it may break our code at any moment.
Solution:: Do not use protected attributes and methods. Respect the encapsulation.

Example:

# Correct:
self._protected = 1
cls._hidden_method()
some.public()

# Wrong:
print(some._protected)
instance._hidden()
self.container._internal = 10

Note, that it is possible to use protected attributes with self and cls as base names. We allow this so you can create and use protected attributes and methods inside the class context. This is how protected attributes should be used.

New in version 0.3.0.

error_template = 'Found protected attribute usage: {0}'¶

code = 441¶

class LambdaInsideLoopViolation(node, text=None)[source]¶

Bases: wemake_python_styleguide.violations.base.ASTViolation

Forbids to use lambda inside loops.

Reasoning:: It is error-prone to use lambda inside for and while loops due to the famous late-binding.
Solution:: Use regular functions, factory functions, or partial functions. Save yourself from possible confusion.

Example:

# Correct:
for index in range(10):
    some.append(partial_function(index))

# Wrong:
for index in range(10):
    some.append(lambda index=index: index * 10))
    other.append(lambda: index * 10))

New in version 0.5.0.

error_template = "Found `lambda` in loop's body"¶

code = 442¶

class UnreachableCodeViolation(node, text=None)[source]¶

Bases: wemake_python_styleguide.violations.base.ASTViolation

Forbids to have unreachable code.

What is unreachable code? It is some lines of code that cannot be executed by python’s interpreter.

This is probably caused by return or raise statements. However, we can not cover 100% of truly unreachable code by this rule. This happens due to the dynamic nature of python. For example, detecting that 1 / some_value would sometimes raise an exception is too complicated and is out of the scope of this rule.

Reasoning:: Having dead code in your project is an indicator that you do not care about your code base at all. It dramatically reduces code quality and readability. It also demotivates team members.
Solution:: Delete any unreachable code you have. Or refactor it, if this happens by your mistake.

Example:

# Correct:
def some_function():
    print('This line is reachable, all good')
    return 5

# Wrong:
def some_function():
    return 5
    print('This line is unreachable')

New in version 0.5.0.

error_template = 'Found unreachable code'¶

code = 443¶

class StatementHasNoEffectViolation(node, text=None)[source]¶

Bases: wemake_python_styleguide.violations.base.ASTViolation

Forbids to have statements that do nothing.

Reasoning:: Statements that just access the value or expressions used as statements indicate that your code contains deadlines. They just pollute your codebase and do nothing.
Solution:: Refactor your code in case it was a typo or error. Or just delete this code.

Example:

# Correct:
def some_function():
    price = 8 + 2
    return price

# Wrong:
def some_function():
    8 + 2
    print

New in version 0.5.0.

error_template = 'Found statement that has no effect'¶

code = 444¶

class MultipleAssignmentsViolation(node, text=None)[source]¶

Bases: wemake_python_styleguide.violations.base.ASTViolation

Forbids to have statements that do nothing.

Reasoning:: Multiple assignments on the same line might not do what you think they do. They can also grown pretty long. And you will not notice the rising complexity of your code.
Solution:: Use separate lines for each assignment.

Example:

# Correct:
a = 1
b = 1

# Wrong:
a = b = 1

New in version 0.6.0.

error_template = 'Found multiple assign targets'¶

code = 445¶

class IncorrectUnpackingViolation(node, text=None)[source]¶

Bases: wemake_python_styleguide.violations.base.ASTViolation

Forbids to have statements that do nothing.

Reasoning:: Having unpacking with side-effects is very dirty. You might get in serious and very hard-to-debug troubles because of this technique. So, do not use it.
Solution:: Use unpacking with only variables, not any other entities.

Example:

# Correct:
first, second = some()

# Wrong:
first, some_dict['alias'] = some()

New in version 0.6.0.

error_template = 'Found incorrect unpacking target'¶

code = 446¶

class DuplicateExceptionViolation(node, text=None)[source]¶

Bases: wemake_python_styleguide.violations.base.ASTViolation

Forbids to have the same exception class in multiple except blocks.

Reasoning:: Having the same exception name in different blocks means that something is not right: since only one branch will work. Other one will always be ignored. So, that is clearly an error.
Solution:: Use unique exception handling rules.

Example:

# Correct:
try:
    ...
except ValueError:
    ...

# Wrong:
try:
    ...
except ValueError:
    ...
except ValueError:
    ...

New in version 0.6.0.

error_template = 'Found duplicate exception: {0}'¶

code = 447¶

class YieldInComprehensionViolation(node, text=None)[source]¶

Bases: wemake_python_styleguide.violations.base.ASTViolation

Forbids to have yield keyword inside comprehensions.

Reasoning:: Having the yield keyword inside comprehensions is error-prone. You can shoot yourself in a foot by an inaccurate usage of this feature.
Solution:: Use regular for loops with yield keywords. Or create a separate generator function.

Example:

# Wrong:
>>> list((yield letter) for letter in 'ab')
['a', None, 'b', None]

>>> list([(yield letter) for letter in 'ab'])
['a', 'b']

New in version 0.7.0.

error_template = 'Found `yield` inside comprehension'¶

code = 448¶

class NonUniqueItemsInSetViolation(node, text=None)[source]¶

Bases: wemake_python_styleguide.violations.base.ASTViolation

Forbids to have duplicate items in set literals.

Reasoning:: When you explicitly put duplicate items in set literals it just does not make any sense. Since set can not contain duplicate items and they will be removed anyway.
Solution:: Remove the duplicate items.

Example:

# Correct:
some_set = {'a', variable1}
some_set = {make_call(), make_call()}

# Wrong:
some_set = {'a', 'a', variable1, variable1}

Things that we consider duplicates: builtins and variables. These nodes are not checked because they may return different results:

function and method calls
comprehensions
attributes
subscribe operations
containers: lists, dicts, tuples, sets

New in version 0.7.0.

error_template = 'Found non-unique item in `set` literal: {0}'¶

code = 449¶

class BaseExceptionSubclassViolation(node, text=None)[source]¶

Bases: wemake_python_styleguide.violations.base.ASTViolation

Forbids to have duplicate items in set literals.

Reasoning:: BaseException is a special case: it is not designed to be extended by users. A lot of your except Exception cases won’t work. That’s incorrect and dangerous.
Solution:: Change the base class to Exception.

Example:

# Correct:
class MyException(Exception):
    ...

# Wrong:
class MyException(BaseException):
    ...

New in version 0.7.0.

error_template = 'Found exception inherited from `BaseException`'¶

code = 450¶

class SimplifiableIfViolation(node, text=None)[source]¶

Bases: wemake_python_styleguide.violations.base.ASTViolation

Forbids to have simplifiable if conditions.

Reasoning:: This complex construction can cause frustration among other developers. It is longer, more verbose, and more complex.
Solution:: Use bool() to convert test values to boolean values. Or just leave it as it is in case when your test already returns a boolean value. Use can also use not keyword to switch boolean values.

Example:

# Correct:
my_bool = bool(some_call())
other_value = 8 if some_call() else None

# Wrong:
my_bool = True if some_call() else False

We only check if nodes where True and False values are used. We check both if nodes and if expressions.

New in version 0.7.0.

error_template = 'Found simplifiable `if` condition'¶

code = 451¶

class IncorrectClassBodyContentViolation(node, text=None)[source]¶

Bases: wemake_python_styleguide.violations.base.ASTViolation

Forbids to use incorrect nodes inside class definitions.

Reasoning:: Python allows us to have conditions, context managers, and even infinite loops inside class definitions. On the other hand, only methods, attributes, and docstrings make sense. So, we discourage using anything except these nodes in class bodies.
Solution:: If you have complex logic inside your class definition, most likely that you do something wrong. There are different options to refactor this mess. You can try metaclasses, decorators, builders, and other patterns.

Example:

# Wrong:
class Test(object):
    for _ in range(10):
        print('What?!')

We also allow some nested classes, check out NestedClassViolation for more information.

New in version 0.7.0.

error_template = 'Found incorrect node inside `class` body'¶

code = 452¶

class MethodWithoutArgumentsViolation(node, text=None)[source]¶

Bases: wemake_python_styleguide.violations.base.ASTViolation

Forbids to have methods without any arguments.

Reasoning:: Methods withour arguments are allowed to be defined, but almost impossible to use. Furthermore, they don’t have an access to self, so can not access the inner state of the object. It might be an intentional design or just a typo.
Solution:: Move any methods with arguments to raw functions. Or just add an argument if it is actually required.

Example:

# Correct:
class Test(object):
    def method(self): ...

# Wrong:
class Test(object):
    def method(): ...

New in version 0.7.0.

error_template = 'Found method without arguments: {0}'¶

code = 453¶

class IncorrectBaseClassViolation(node, text=None)[source]¶

Bases: wemake_python_styleguide.violations.base.ASTViolation

Forbids to have methods without any arguments.

Reasoning:: In Python you can specify anything in the base classes slot. In runtime this expression will be evaluated and executed. We need to prevent dirty hacks in this field.
Solution:: Use only attributes, names, and types to be your base classes.

Example:

# Correct:
class Test(module.ObjectName, MixinName, keyword=True): ...
class GenericClass(Generic[ValueType]): ...

# Wrong:
class Test((lambda: object)()): ...

New in version 0.7.0.

Changed in version 0.7.1.

error_template = 'Found incorrect base class'¶

code = 454¶

class IncorrectSlotsViolation(node, text=None)[source]¶

Bases: wemake_python_styleguide.violations.base.ASTViolation

Forbids to have incorrect __slots__ definition.

Reasoning:: __slots__ is a very special attribute. It completely changes your class. So, we need to be careful with it. We should not allow anything rather than tuples to define slots, we also need to check that fields defined in __slots__ are unique.
Solution:: Use tuples with unique elements to define __slots__ attribute.

Example:

# Correct:
class Test(object):
    __slots__ = ('field1', 'field2')

class Other(Test):
    __slots__ = Test.__slots__ + ('child',)

# Wrong:
class Test(object):
    __slots__ = ['field1', 'field2', 'field2']

Note, that we do ignore all complex expressions for this field. So, we only check raw literals.

New in version 0.7.0.

error_template = 'Found incorrect `__slots__` syntax'¶

code = 455¶

class IncorrectSuperCallViolation(node, text=None)[source]¶

Bases: wemake_python_styleguide.violations.base.ASTViolation

Forbids to use super() with parameters or outside of methods.

Reasoning:: super() is a very special function. It implicitly relies on the context where it is used and parameters passed to it. So, we should be very careful with parameters and context.
Solution:: Use super() without arguments and only inside methods.

Example:

# Correct:
super().__init__()

# Wrong:
super(ClassName, self).__init__()

New in version 0.7.0.

error_template = 'Found incorrect `super()` call: {0}'¶

code = 456¶

class RedundantReturningElseViolation(node, text=None)[source]¶

Bases: wemake_python_styleguide.violations.base.ASTViolation

Forbids to use redundant else cases in returning functions.

We check single if statements that all contain return or raise or break statements with this rule. We do not check if statements with elif cases.

Reasoning:: Using extra else creates a situation when the whole node could and should be dropped without any changes in logic. So, we prefer to have less code than more code.
Solution:: Remove redundant else case.

Example:

# Correct:
def some_function():
    if some_call():
        return 'yeap'
    return 'nope'

# Wrong:
def some_function():
    if some_call():
        raise ValueError('yeap')
    else:
        raise ValueError('nope')

New in version 0.7.0.

error_template = 'Found redundant returning `else` statement'¶

code = 457¶

class TryExceptMultipleReturnPathViolation(node, text=None)[source]¶

Bases: wemake_python_styleguide.violations.base.ASTViolation

Forbids to use multiple return path with try / except case.

Reasoning:: The problem with return in else and finally is that it is impossible to say what value is going to be actually returned without looking up the implementation details. Why? Because return does not expect that some other code will be executed after it. But, finally is always executed, even after return. And else will not be executed when there are no exceptions in try case and a return statement.
Solution:: Remove return from one of the cases.

Example:

# Wrong:
try:
    return 1  # this line will never return
except Exception:
    ...
finally:
    return 2  # this line will actually return

try:
    return 1  # this line will actually return
except ZeroDivisionError:
    ...
else:
    return 0  # this line will never return

New in version 0.7.0.

error_template = 'Found `try`/`else`/`finally` with multiple return paths'¶

code = 458¶

Best practices¶

Summary¶

Comments¶

Modules¶

Builtins¶

Design¶

wemake-python-styleguide

Navigation

Links