[issue42238] Deprecate suspicious.py?

[Raymond Hettinger]

Raymond Hettinger <raymond.hettinger at gmail.com> added the comment:

If reactivated, the tool needs to be substantially improved.  It is NOT smart.  The false positives for slicing and logging examples are unnecessarily annoying.  It creates a barrier for people submitting documentation patches.  Each of the 367 entries in the susp-ignored file represents wasted time for contributors.

Also the CSV format is arcane, hard-to-read, and hard-to-edit.  It looks like it was quickly thrown together by someone who didn't care about usability.  Perhaps there should be a simpler tools that says, "take this current failure and mark it as a false positive" without trying to be over specific.

Mandatory checks with a high false positive rate are an anti-pattern for CI systems.  Already we've had one case of a contributor (me) who abandoned a doc patch rather than fight this tooling.

----------

_______________________________________
Python tracker <report at bugs.python.org>
<https://bugs.python.org/issue42238>
_______________________________________