Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
- Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork1.7k
Refactorpeps.json logic into PEP class#2585
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to ourterms of service andprivacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub?Sign in to your account
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
Conversation
ghost commentedMay 7, 2022 • edited by ghost
Loading Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
edited by ghost
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
The following commit authors need to sign the Contributor License Agreement: |
AA-Turner commentedMay 7, 2022 • edited
Loading Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
edited
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
AA-Turner commentedMay 7, 2022
@hugovk how can we turn these comments off? A |
hugovk commentedMay 7, 2022
These are called "GitHub Checks": https://docs.codecov.com/docs/github-checks Let's try disabling by putting this in github_checks:annotations:false |
CAM-Gerlach left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.
Seems like a solid change overall, and a step toward further single-sourcing PEP header parsing. I did have a few comments/suggestions, though.
| @property | ||
| deffull_details(self)->dict[str,str]: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.
| @property | |
| deffull_details(self)->dict[str,str]: | |
| defto_dict(self)->dict[str,str]: |
Instead of making this a property (especially when the otherwise similardetails, despite its name being a noun, is not), it would be clearer, more descriptive and conventional to have it be ato_dict() method, no?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.
I prefer the internal consistency of details / full_details, but not a big issue.
PEP.details will become a property under the refactoring work needed for subindices, I'm pretty sure, although again minor.
A
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.
Well, I'm not sure why it needs to be a property, but that's really just bikeshedding. What confused me more was the "consistency" withdetails , as it doesn't seem obvious without careful inspection howfull_details differs from it, nor what callers should expect it to do.
However, that got me thinking: It would seem to me that there should only be one attribute (whether ametadata property, with the existing one made private or renamed toheaders, or ato_dict() method) that contains the PEP's metadata as a dict, and selecting specific attributes the caller wants to use and any specialized output-specific reformatting it needs it should be the callers concern, rather than the PEP class.
This shouldn't be that much to unify them; as it stands now,details is only used bypep_zero_generator.writer.column_format, which just passes it toformat(), and so the items it doesn't use are simply discarded. Otherwise, the only differences are:
numberis missing fromfull_details, which should just be addedtitleis truncated indetails, which can be done by the caller or better yet just dropped (since many non-truncated titles and those with many authors already extend to two lines anyway, so the space may as well be used to just show the full title, since only one PEP title is longer than 79 characters which still fits easily on two lines)typeandstatusare truncated to one letter indetails, which can easily be done in the caller's format string, and is uppercased, which it already is for all valid typesstatusadditionally has theApril Foolstatus normalized, which should be done for both
So the only changes needed to replacedetails withfull_details should be addingnumber, normalizing the April Fool status, and adding:.1 aftertype andstatus in thepep_zero_generator.writer.column_format format string.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
| json_path=Path(app.outdir,"api","peps.json").resolve() | ||
| json_path.parent.mkdir(exist_ok=True) | ||
| json_path.write_text(create_pep_json(peps),encoding="utf-8") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.
I'm not sure I really understand the pressing need to rewrite all this when there were no functional changes in or near this line, and the previous form was perfectly valid and does exactly the same thing...it just seems like churn to me, but maybe I'm missing something important here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.
A (small) speed up as we only sort the large list of PEPs once.
A
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.
I don't follow, sorry. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how any of the changes here have anything to do with that, as no sorting is performed within this block andcreate_pep_json is called once both times in the same way
(Pedantic note: Other thancreate_pep_json() is not bound to a name first before using it, which saves a few hundred kB of memory for the few ≈milliseconds it is alive while the path is checked, and perhaps on the order of microseconds on the fast local name lookup.)
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
hugovk commentedMay 20, 2022
(Doing a close/re-open to trigger the CLA bot.) |
hugovk commentedJun 7, 2022 • edited
Loading Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
edited
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
(Doing a close/re-open to trigger the CLA bot. It was green onpython/cpython#93468 andpython/cpython#93564.) |
AA-Turner commentedJun 7, 2022 • edited
Loading Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
edited
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
@hugovk Sadly I think that's as I was a co-author not the primary committer. (Which indicates that the CLA bot probably needs to be more thorough actually, I guess) A |
AA-Turner commentedJun 8, 2022
@JelleZijlstra and this one too please! A |


Factored out of#2579, simplifying the processing in
pep_index_generator.py.This also fixes a logic bug, as currently the author concatenation overwrites the
.authorsattribute with each author in turn, deleting the list.A