Can you take a look at the checks once

In CI chcks, One of the autoflake plugin trying to remove pass keyword from code which is not necessary to remove as they are placeholders and required to function the functions properly !

Please rectify the issue!

There is nothing to rectify @jyejare.
Autoflake is correct, you do not have to have pass present in the function body if the function has a docstring.
I do not feel that this is a reason to block this PR.

Agree but using pass is a common behavior in programmers and that also tells it is not implemented.

I really dont see we should have any checks to remove it. Probably we can ignore that check from the hook.

Agree but using pass is a common behavior in programmers and that also tells it is not implemented.

I really dont see we should have any checks to remove it. Probably we can ignore that check from the hook.

Agreed, using pass is a common habit, but that does not mean that we have to necessarily follow it.

PEP 257 states

A docstring is a string literal that occurs as the first statement in a module, function, class, or method definition. Such a docstring becomes the doc special attribute of that object.

That means that if the function has __doc__ defined, you do not have to explicitly state that the function is no-op by adding pass statement.

Also, pass does not tell you that the function is not implemented. We rather use the NotImplementedError exception for such cases. If the function is to be implemented, we should rather use Ellipsis.

There is a nice thread on this topic on Stack Overflow.

Since autoflake is developed by PyCQA, I would trust them and go with what their tools suggest.

@ogajduse Sure! And thanks for the nice explanation! Well still I will keep my NACK to fix the files which has pass statement in them and to pass the checks !

@ogajduse @shweta83 The failing checks are still needed to be fixed in this PR else it will fail for all other PRs post merge!

Note, broker is doing the same with unnecessary pass statements.
https://github.com/SatelliteQE/broker/pull/222/files#diff-9a0a611a3465b0e376c87ba5b73a144e952c4aaf584122d37ea5052486a6e8d3L151

About pass vs ..., this sums it up quite nicely: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/55274977/when-is-the-usage-of-the-python-ellipsis-to-be-preferred-over-pass
@ogajduse , why do you think "If the function is to be implemented, we should rather use Ellipsis."? I don't agree with that one.
OTOH, I do agree that we should use NotImplementedError more.

@lhellebr I perhaps did not study it deeper. I do not have a strong opinion on whether to use Ellipsis or pass

This pull request has not been updated in the past 45 days.

What's the status here? From reading the comments, I wasn't able to identify what's blocking progress. Are we waiting for @shweta83 to fix the style checks?

I am in favor of closing this PR as there is a plan to include ruff into our workflow in robottelo in the same way as in broker, nailgun, and airgun.

Ruff added as a part of #12621

@shweta83 We should now close this as we have ruff in place now!

Thanks for all your efforts though 👍