Make use of TODO comments

The idea is that we can leave TODO and it will show as warning in the pipeline because it can be detected by pylint.
Right now, there are a lot of TODO left by Nicolas, some possible impovements or sometime just kind of explanations (in functions.py ).
I'd like to clean those, convert actual features suggestions to Issues (or not) then we can remove the "fixme" pylint exception, and use TODO tags as they were meant in the first place.

added ci style labels

Existing TODOs:

************* Module pyotb.core
pyotb\core.py:811:13: W0511: TODO: here we *should* use self.app.IsParameterEnabled, but it seems broken (fixme)
pyotb\core.py:889:9: W0511: TODO: handle the step value in the slice so that NN undersampling is possible ? e.g. raster[::2, ::2] (fixme)
************* Module pyotb.functions
pyotb\functions.py:225:9: W0511: TODO: maybe not entirely foolproof, maybe we should use dill instead? but it would add a dependency (fixme)
pyotb\functions.py:304:9: W0511: TODO: handle the deletion of the temporary model ? (fixme)
pyotb\functions.py:356:5: W0511: TODO: there seems to have a bug, ImageMetaData is not updated when running an app, (fixme)
pyotb\functions.py:384:13: W0511: TODO : it is when the user explicitly specifies the bounding box -> add some arguments in the function (fixme)
pyotb\functions.py:387:13: W0511: TODO : it is when the user wants the final bounding box to be the union of all bounding box (fixme)
pyotb\functions.py:401:17: W0511: TODO: OTB 7.4 fixes this bug, how to handle different versions of OTB? (fixme)
pyotb\functions.py:431:13: W0511: TODO : when the user explicitly specify the pixel size -> add argument inside the function (fixme)

By Vincent Delbar on 2023-05-31T16:41:27 (imported from GitLab)

So it seems TODOs here are mostly classic like developer comments to help understand the code.

So if we keep only features, to see if we should transform it to an issue :

• handle the step value in the slice so that NN undersampling is possible ? e.g. raster[::2, ::2]
• handle the deletion of the temporary model ? (I guess for OTBTF)
• how to handle different versions of OTB?

By Vincent Delbar on 2023-05-31T16:41:44 (imported from GitLab)

I prefer that we let the code carry the #todos

This way everything is in the code, at the right place.

Let's configure linters to evade #todos instead

By Rémi Cresson on 2023-06-01T18:00:40 (imported from GitLab)

I don't understand what you mean by "I prefer that we let the code carry the #todos"
My idea is to keep using todos in code, but also see it in the pylint pipeline (that still has the "allow_failure" flag) so we can see the TODOs in the test report, and not lose it somewhere in the code where we forget about it.
My idea was to use todos as things like "I want to fix before merge".

But may be you see this more as things to do later, long term ?

By Vincent Delbar on 2023-06-01T18:01:16 (imported from GitLab)

If you don't want TODOs in the pylint report I'll close this issue

By Vincent Delbar on 2023-06-01T18:02:17 (imported from GitLab)

My idea is to keep using todos in code

Okay I didn't understand that. I thought you wanted to remove them from the code.

In my opinion, todos left in the code are not a problem. They just are a note for future devs. Not sure if we can make use of them in the CI or something.

I think that letting the linter fail because of todos is not great because it could hide critical defects (e.g. syntax error)

By Rémi Cresson on 2023-06-01T18:10:03 (imported from GitLab)

Okay, so we keep the pylint exception and I'll clean the TODOs while fixing #97

By Vincent Delbar on 2023-06-01T18:42:58 (imported from GitLab)

closed