Skip to content

Fix pylint false positives for ThreadPoolExecutor#4244

Open
srikaaviya wants to merge 1 commit intoopen-telemetry:mainfrom
srikaaviya:fix-threadpool-pylint
Open

Fix pylint false positives for ThreadPoolExecutor#4244
srikaaviya wants to merge 1 commit intoopen-telemetry:mainfrom
srikaaviya:fix-threadpool-pylint

Conversation

@srikaaviya
Copy link

Description

This PR changes the concurrent.futures import style in three files to bypass a known no-name-in-module pylint parsing bug introduced when adding Python 3.14 support.

By using import concurrent.futures and fully qualifying concurrent.futures.ThreadPoolExecutor and concurrent.futures.Future, we cleanly resolve the false positive without needing any # pylint: disable comments or global config overrides.

Fixes #4199

Type of change

  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)

How Has This Been Tested?

The official tox linting suites passed successfully:

Does This PR Require a Core Repo Change?

No.

Checklist:

  • Followed the style guidelines of this project
  • Changelogs - (N/A - purely internal linting fix)
  • Unit tests - (N/A - fixing lint false positive)
  • Documentation - (N/A)

@srikaaviya srikaaviya requested a review from a team as a code owner February 20, 2026 23:58
@srikaaviya srikaaviya force-pushed the fix-threadpool-pylint branch from 3d58728 to bdd972d Compare February 23, 2026 22:17
@xrmx xrmx moved this to Ready for review in @xrmx's Python PR digest Feb 24, 2026
@xrmx xrmx moved this from Ready for review to Reviewed PRs that need fixes in @xrmx's Python PR digest Feb 24, 2026
Copy link
Contributor

@xrmx xrmx left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't think this is the right way to fix this. We should fix all the issue we have with a newer pylint version and then remove the comments.


# from concurrent.futures import ( # pylint: disable=no-name-in-module; TODO #4199
# ThreadPoolExecutor,
# )
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

do we need this commented out ? can we just remove it ? here and everywhere else ?

@JWinermaSplunk
Copy link

I agree with @xrmx in that we should bump the pylint version instead of using the fully qualified names.

@srikaaviya srikaaviya force-pushed the fix-threadpool-pylint branch from bdd972d to 59e2617 Compare February 24, 2026 23:05
@srikaaviya
Copy link
Author

srikaaviya commented Feb 24, 2026

@xrmx @DylanRussell @JWinermaSplunk I bumped pylint to 4.0.5, as anticipated, the upgrade surfaces 41 lint job failures across the repo. Should I address them in this PR? What would you recommend?

@xrmx
Copy link
Contributor

xrmx commented Feb 26, 2026

@xrmx @DylanRussell @JWinermaSplunk I bumped pylint to 4.0.5, as anticipated, the upgrade surfaces 41 lint job failures across the repo. Should I address them in this PR? What would you recommend?

I would start by changing the pylint configuration to:

[DESIGN]
max-positional-arguments=10

And then re-evaluate what's left. I see there are files with 12 or even 18 occurrences but there would probably good to add a local comment to disable the warnings.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

Status: Reviewed PRs that need fixes

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Fix pylint false positives for ThreadPoolExecutor

5 participants