-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 24
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 our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
New Python functions lf.package_directory()
and lf.source_directory()
#455
Conversation
WalkthroughThe recent updates introduce two new functions, Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant User
participant PythonModule
User->>PythonModule: Call py_source_directory()
PythonModule-->>User: Return source directory path as string
User->>PythonModule: Call py_package_directory()
PythonModule-->>User: Return package directory path as string
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (invoked as PR comments)
Additionally, you can add CodeRabbit Configration File (
|
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.
Actionable comments posted: 3
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (2)
- python/include/pythontarget.h (1 hunks)
- python/lib/pythontarget.c (2 hunks)
Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- python/include/pythontarget.h
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.
As I pointed out for the corresponding C constants, I think it is a bad practice to expose information about the location of compiled files as static constants to the program. This means that a compiled program cannot be redeployed to a different location.
What is this needed for?
This is needed so that a reactor can access a data file. The motivating application is an ML model. Do you have an alternative suggestion? |
Why not provide the path via runtime parameters? This could be done via CLI arguments (I guess this is not supported for the python and C targets) or by reading an environment variable. |
@cmnrd:I think the conclusion we reached during our last call was that we can admit this as a temporary solution? |
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.
Actionable comments posted: 0
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (1)
- python/lib/pythontarget.c (2 hunks)
Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- python/lib/pythontarget.c
lf.package_directory()
and lf.source_director()
lf.package_directory()
and lf.source_director()
lf.package_directory()
and lf.source_directory()
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.
Looks good!
This PR adds to Python a mechanism to obtain the path of the source directory (the main .lf file) and the package root (where src and bin are). This mirrors the constants available in the C target
LF_SOURCE_DIRECTORY
andLF_PACKAGE_DIRECTORY
.This PR is joint with @vinzbarbuto.
Summary by CodeRabbit
py_source_directory
andpy_package_directory
.