Should a docstring section header be allowed without a docstring summary?

[jorgegomezcq]

Hi,

Should a docstring section header be allowed without a docstring summary?

If ruff rule D212 is enabled, ruff will try to put the docstring section header on the first line thinking that this is the docstring summary.

Here is a fragment from my git diff of what ruff did:

-    """
-    Note:
-        unchecked Foo garbage
+    """Note:
+    unchecked Foo garbage
     """

[jorgegomezcq]

Or, stated differently. How can I avoid the above fix from occuring? I'm not sure what ruff pydocstyle rule caused it.

I'll try to trigger it again and run ruff --show-source . (TIL) to see if I can show myself the diff and configuration/context that would cause such a fix...

[dhruvmanila]

I think you might want to use D213 instead which will keep the docstring summary on the second line. Does that help your use-case?

[jorgegomezcq]

Hi, Thanks for the reply. I don't think it does because I'm using Google style docstrings and I want the docstring to be as specified in D212 which is what the Google style docstring recommends to use... Correct me if I am wrong here.