-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 197
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
Modernize type annotations and fix some discrepancies #451
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
8 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
81c6b00
Fix type hints on SDO classes.
acolomb 9c033d0
Fix __iter__() return type annotation in PDO classes.
acolomb 9880489
Fix __iter__() return type annotation in Network and OD classes.
acolomb 04c02e1
More __future__.annotations fixes.
acolomb 9220fd7
Annotate PdoVariable.pdo_parent type.
acolomb 2a6049d
Remove unnecessary variable initialization.
acolomb bda53bb
More __future__.annotations fixes and type hints for PDO code.
49c7bcb
Merge branch 'master' into sdo-typing-fixes
acolomb File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
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.
What is the intention of having
Union[LocalNode, RemoteNode]
as just usingBaseNode
? Do we expect otherBaseNode
derivatives that are not compatible withPdoBase
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.
Simply because we need the
.sdo
attribute here and that is not part ofBaseNode
. I previously asked the same question in #446 (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.
Yes, otherwise we only have network, object_dictionary and id attributes. Also explicit is better than implicit, thats why I don't like defining these attributes in the BaseNode which would be another 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.
Great, thanks.
Perhaps we should at some point make a
NodeProtocol
for the required attributes instead of using a exhaustive list? It might not be worth the efforts thou, since theUnion
is only used a few places.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.
Agreed, I think the
Union
approach is simple enough and warranted. We can still rework it when there's a stronger argument for it.