Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
Add a new
declare-non-slot
error code #9564Add a new
declare-non-slot
error code #9564Changes from all commits
ac43896
245be58
fe93eaa
84f1a1f
09c22f8
b7d0ea3
f3eede2
2f35234
0301e23
654fdaa
5a7bb6f
9ea4441
deb9d41
cfd81c2
67b5d50
b346850
71f763e
7080a86
4213b1b
05e0e14
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
We have
self.a = 42
line 183 in the functional test, maybe getting coverage for this is as simple as adding a line withself.b : str = "AnnAssign.value is not None"
too ?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.
Thanks, I've added this, hopefully this will fix the code coverage complaint. Waiting for the CI checks to run now.
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.
There might be specific condition to enter this condition, (a "b" value in slot maybe ?)
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.
The codecov test result seems to have changed now, it's claiming that a line isn't covered which (surely?) must be covered by the tests which generate the new message. I don't understand why the codecov test is failing, are you able to shed any light on this please?
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 tried something with
b: str
being declared. I assume the diff between main and this branch got too big. Also fixed the doc generation.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 on mobile but this seems very similar to
_check_slots
. I'm a bit worried that we're duplicating checks and run the risk of code drift.Have you considered refactoring the other method to serve both purposes?
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 agree that
_check_slots
and_has_valid_slots
are similar and that it would be best not to duplicate these checks. Refactoring is complicated by the fact that_check_slots
is doing a few jobs at the same time:__slots__
is valid__slots__
looks valid, get the slot items and apply 2 further checks.The difference between
_check_slots
and_has_valid_slots
are that_check_slots
cares about the reason why__slots__
isn't valid, whereas_has_valid_slots
only detects whether__slots__
is valid. It might be wise to introduce a method that serves both purposes e.g._validate_slots
that returns anEnum
that either reports a valid__slots__
or says why it is invalid. This would allow you to separate the multiple concerns of the_check_slots
method a little more clearly.The question is whether refactoring
_check_slots
is within the scope of this MR. To me that feels like quite a big refactor that should be its own MR. I would propose that if the present MR is accepted an issue should then be opened to highlight the need to refactor these slot checks to reduce the duplication. I'd be happy to work on that issue as a separate MR.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.
Added this line to cover everything. Do we agree it shouldn't raised @adamtuft ?
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.
Thanks, I see now that I added that annotation to a test which doesn't report the message, so it wasn't covering the required line.
Yes, looks good, that doesn't raise the error 👍 thank you for your help!