I just used pychecker on Django and it helpfully found a few bugs. However, it printed a lot of warnings that were wrong, and it obviously has some bugs itself:
.../django/db/models/options.py:134: INTERNAL ERROR -- STOPPED PROCESSING FUNCTION -- Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/lib/site-python/pychecker/warn.py", line 222, in _checkFunction _findUnreachableCode(code) File "/usr/lib/site-python/pychecker/warn.py", line 180, in _findUnreachableCode lastLine, lastItem, lastIndex = code.returnValues[-1] IndexError: list index out of range
So just how good is pychecker?
Pretty good — according to itself! Lets try another experiment:
$ pylint pychecker ************* Module pychecker [snip 1600 lines] Global evaluation ----------------- Your code has been rated at 5.65/10
5.65 out of 10 — ha! I detect some bias in pychecker's assessment of itself! Why are we even listening to pychecker! pylint is obviously miles better — look:
$ pylint pylint [snip 100 lines] Global evaluation ----------------- Your code has been rated at 9.89/10
Pretty hot! Let's try pylint on Django:
$ pylint django ************* Module django [snip 7000 lines] Global evaluation ----------------- Your code has been rated at 5.19/10
Bummer. That didn't go where I wanted it to. Actually, why I am listening to
what some dumb program says about Django? Who appointed pylint as the arbiter
of code style: ...
Line too long (208/80) ...
Too many local
variables (23/15) ...? Bah!
On a more serious note, I think pylint (especially
pylint | egrep '^E:')
has some useful output, though it still makes mistakes. At some point I
intend to go through it more carefully. The problem is there is so much of it
— perhaps it would be nice to have a 'pylintdiff' type command — what errors
is pylint giving that it didn't last time. I guess that would be a few lines
of shell script.