openapi-python-client VS black

On the backend, developers either need to manually document the entire API or rely on auto-generation tools that don’t fully meet their needs. Consumers face the same choice, write code by hand or workaround the bugs in their SDK generator (stated, lovingly, as the maintainer of an OpenAPI client generator). On top of this, these solutions result in inconsistent understandings of the API. Reproducing errors becomes time-consuming and frustrating, which feels like a battle instead of a collaboration. What we need is a shared language to describe how the API works—one that doesn’t add unnecessary layers of abstraction or manual work.

Has anyone tried Kiota, specifically the Python support? How does it compare to https://github.com/openapi-generators/openapi-python-client ?

I think we use these - https://github.com/openapi-generators/openapi-python-client

Thanks for the link, but not necessarily.

How WSDL and the code generation around it worked, was that you'd have a specification of the web API (much like OpenAPI attempts to do), which you could feed into any number of code generators, to get output code which has no coupling to the actual generator at runtime, whereas Pyotr is geared more towards validation and goes into the opposite direction: https://pyotr.readthedocs.io/en/latest/client/

The best analogy that i can think of is how you can also do schema first application development - you do your SQL migrations (ideally in an automated way as well) and then just run a command locally to generate all of the data access classes and/or models for your database tables within your application. That way, you save your time for 80% of the boring and repetitive stuff while minimizing the risks of human error and inconsistencies, while nothing preventing you from altering the generated code if you have specific needs (outside of needing to make it non overrideable, for example, a child class of a generated class). Of course, there's no reason why this can't be applied to server code either - write the spec first and generate stubs for endpoints that you'll just fill out.

Similarly there shouldn't be a need for a special client to generate stubs for OpenAPI, the closest that Python in particular has for now is this https://github.com/openapi-generators/openapi-python-client

However, for some reason, model driven development never really took off, outside of niche frameworks, like JHipster: https://www.jhipster.tech/

Furthermore, for whatever reason formal specs for REST APIs also never really got popular and aren't regarded as the standard, which to me seems silly: every bit of client code that you write will need a specific version to work against, which should be formalized.

Tallying up the results, we get 7/8 "MUST" requirements met. I think that Paperclip + actix-web seems like the most promising candidate. I'm really not opposed to writing the OpenAPI v3 construction myself as I've worked with the structure a fair bit in my openapi-python-client project (shameless plug).

Automatic documentation via OpenAPI, which lets you do things like generate Python code that knows how to talk to your API.

$ git commit -m "add pre-commit configuration" [INFO] Initializing environment for https://github.com/psf/black. [INFO] Installing environment for https://github.com/psf/black. [INFO] Once installed this environment will be reused. [INFO] This may take a few minutes... black................................................(no files to check)Skipped [main 6e21eab] add pre-commit configuration 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)

Black: Known as “The Uncompromising Code Formatter”, Black automatically formats your Python code to conform to the PEP 8 style guide. It takes away the hassle of having to manually adjust your code style.

black @ git+https://github.com/psf/black

In the realm of Python development, there is a multitude of code formatters that adhere to PEP 8 guidelines. Today, we will briefly discuss how to install and utilize black.

Perfect, that worked, thank you!

I thought this could be solved by changing the directory to src/ and then executing that command, but this didn't work.

This also seems to be an issue with the web app, e.g. the repository for the formatter black is only one white dot https://dep-tree-explorer.vercel.app/api?repo=https://github...

Ruff is not only much faster, but it is also very convenient to have an all-in-one solution that replaces multiple other widely used tools: Flake8 (linter), isort (imports sorting), Black (code formatter), autoflake, many Flake8 plugins and more. And it has drop-in parity with these tools, so it is really straightforward to migrate from them to Ruff.

What I am looking for is something like Black for Python, which is opinionated, with reasonable defaults, and auto-fixes most/all issues.

1. LICENSE: This file contains information about the rights and permissions granted to users regarding the use, modification, distribution, and sharing of the software. I already had an MIT License in my project. 2. pyproject.toml: It is a configuration file typically used for specifying build requirements and backend build systems for Python projects. I was already using this file for Black code formatter configuration. 3. README.md: Used as a documentation file for your project, typically includes project overview, installation instructions and optionally, contribution instructions. 4. example_package_YOUR_USERNAME_HERE: One big change I had to face was restructuring my project, essentially packaging all files in this directory. The name of this directory should be what you want to name your package and shoud not conflict with any of the existing packages. Of course, since its a Python Package, it needs to have an __init__.py. 5. tests/: This is where you put all your unit and integration tests, I think its optional as not all projects will have tests. The rest of the project remains as is.

using pylint and black ("the uncompromising code formatter")