Proposed opinionated warning against re.match
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Python
- Stars
- 1.1k
- Forks
- 123
- Avg merge
- 2d 5h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 5
Description
Technically, using re.match is valid. Realistically, the author probably meant .search and is going to lose a ton of time trying to figure out why her regex isn't working.
I'm speaking purely in compassion toward more junior developers; I would obviously never make such an elementary mistake myself. https://twitter.com/catherinedevlin/status/1257507010041520139
If you think you're likely to accept it, I'd be interested in authoring such a warning.
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
The issue proposes an opinionated warning for uses of Python's re.match where re.search may have been intended, but names no files, tests, or entry points. First review the project's existing warning implementations and decide the warning's precise scope and behavior. Done means the proposal is implemented with appropriate validation.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- python
- Domain
- tooling
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 4/5
- Estimated time
- 3-5 days
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 25/100