From nobody Sun Feb 8 11:45:28 2026 Delivered-To: importer@patchew.org Received-SPF: pass (zoho.com: domain of redhat.com designates 209.132.183.28 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.183.28; envelope-from=libvir-list-bounces@redhat.com; helo=mx1.redhat.com; Authentication-Results: mx.zohomail.com; spf=pass (zoho.com: domain of redhat.com designates 209.132.183.28 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=libvir-list-bounces@redhat.com; dmarc=pass(p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by mx.zohomail.com with SMTPS id 1548870091629273.1538666137842; Wed, 30 Jan 2019 09:41:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F5CEA0906; Wed, 30 Jan 2019 17:41:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from colo-mx.corp.redhat.com (colo-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.20]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BBC3F5C239; Wed, 30 Jan 2019 17:41:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists01.pubmisc.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com (lists01.pubmisc.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.19.33]) by colo-mx.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C18A18033A7; Wed, 30 Jan 2019 17:41:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.14]) by lists01.pubmisc.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id x0UHedul026502 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2019 12:40:39 -0500 Received: by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) id DCE985D97E; Wed, 30 Jan 2019 17:40:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain.com (ovpn-112-64.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.112.64]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15D2F5D97A; Wed, 30 Jan 2019 17:40:38 +0000 (UTC) From: =?UTF-8?q?Daniel=20P=2E=20Berrang=C3=A9?= To: libvir-list@redhat.com Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 17:40:26 +0000 Message-Id: <20190130174026.20675-7-berrange@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20190130174026.20675-1-berrange@redhat.com> References: <20190130174026.20675-1-berrange@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.14 X-loop: libvir-list@redhat.com Subject: [libvirt] [PATCH 6/6] hyperv: use "is None" not "== None" for PEP-8 compliance X-BeenThere: libvir-list@redhat.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: junk List-Id: Development discussions about the libvirt library & tools List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: libvir-list-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: libvir-list-bounces@redhat.com X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.16 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.39]); Wed, 30 Jan 2019 17:41:30 +0000 (UTC) PEP 8 says: "Comparisons to singletons like None should always be done with 'is' or 'is not', never the equality operators." There are potentially semantics differences, though in the case of this libvirt code its merely a style change: http://jaredgrubb.blogspot.com/2009/04/python-is-none-vs-none.html Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Berrang=C3=A9 Reviewed-by: John Ferlan --- src/hyperv/hyperv_wmi_generator.py | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/src/hyperv/hyperv_wmi_generator.py b/src/hyperv/hyperv_wmi_gen= erator.py index fc1370955f..a9ece0ff00 100755 --- a/src/hyperv/hyperv_wmi_generator.py +++ b/src/hyperv/hyperv_wmi_generator.py @@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ class WmiClass: # because we'll generate "common" member and will be the "base" na= me if len(self.versions) > 1: first =3D self.versions[0] - if first.version =3D=3D None: + if first.version is None: first.version =3D "v1" first.name =3D "%s_%s" % (first.name, first.version) =20 --=20 2.20.1 -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list