Skip to content
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

Cleanup and fixes #69

Open
wants to merge 13 commits into
base: next
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Cleanup and fixes #69

wants to merge 13 commits into from

Conversation

lemonyte
Copy link
Contributor

Cleaned up and formatted the code, also fixed a couple broken tests.
Changes:

  • Changed minimum supported Python version to 3.6 since f-strings and async yield are used
  • Replaced type() check with isinstance() check
  • Replaced asserts in main package code with proper exceptions
  • Replaced .format() calls with f-strings since they are already used in other places
  • Added host parameter to Base() and Drive() functions not in the Deta class
  • Removed accidental unused import
  • Removed trailing and blank line whitespace
  • Fixed test command in CONTRIBUTING.md
  • Fixed test_ttl test
  • Added DETA_SDK_TEST_TTL_ATTRIBUTE to env.sample as seen in the pull request workflow
  • Various other formatting and style changes using flake8
  • Formatted using black -l 100 (same as Clean-Up #48)

What is the purpose of the Deta class in __init__.py? It doesn't seem to accomplish anything new that isn't already available when using the module directly, other than setting the project key and id manually. It's a little confusing having two almost identical sets of methods. Perhaps a better solution would be to have an init() function to manually set the project key and id.

@abdelhai abdelhai mentioned this pull request May 16, 2022
@abdelhai
Copy link
Member

hi @LemonPi314 thanks for the great PR!
what are your thought about the previous PRs we received? Worth reworking them in this PR?

@lemonyte
Copy link
Contributor Author

what are your thought about the previous PRs we received? Worth reworking them in this PR?

I would be happy to do that, or if you prefer I could open a new PR. Any in particular you want me to take a look at?

@abdelhai
Copy link
Member

@LemonPi314 thanks for the quick response! i feel all are worth taking a look at, you could help us decide which ones we should consider merging. one new monolithic PR would be awesome!

i'm assuming this/the new pr will be breaking and we'll have to release a major version. rn, maybe we could group that with async support... what do you think?

@abdelhai abdelhai self-requested a review May 17, 2022 21:22
@abdelhai abdelhai added WIP major new features, api-breaking and removed investigating labels May 17, 2022
@lemonyte
Copy link
Contributor Author

So far nothing in any of the PRs are breaking changes (type hints, formatting, and an added argument to the AsyncBase class).
I will integrate #14 #68 and #70 into this PR.
As for async support, I do think that would be better off separate, since that may include some breaking changes.

@abdelhai
Copy link
Member

i believe yours already does as you're raising a ValueError instead of other exceptions/errors.

@lemonyte
Copy link
Contributor Author

That is true. In that case it may be worth changing the package behavior slightly as described in my original comment since it is a breaking change as well.

@lemonyte
Copy link
Contributor Author

A few questions:

  • For type hints is typing.Optional preferred for all the optional arguments (where None is the default value)?
  • Should I add an argument for an external session here or wait until it gets resolved in its own PR?

@abdelhai
Copy link
Member

the reason behind the Deta class is that you configure the Deta cloient once and you can use all the services. (on Micros, it's per-configured, hence why you can just import the service "class". It's a better devex imo:

# this is the original api
from deta import Deta
deta = Deta(<my key/future config>)
users = deta.Base("users")
photos = deta.Drive("photos")

# this is just a convenience api that works on Micros OR if the project key is set in the environment
from deta import Base, Drive
users = Base("users")
photos = Drive("photos")

We can require devs to put the project key in the env, but what happens if we need more config?

For type hints is typing.Optional preferred for all the optional arguments (where None is the default value)?

is this the pythonic way of doing it? haven't touch python code for a while.

Should I add an argument for an external session here or wait until it gets resolved in its own PR?

you are right, let's keep async separate. i need to think about the api design

@lemonyte
Copy link
Contributor Author

is this the pythonic way of doing it?

It is good practice to explicitly specify that a parameter type can be None when its default value is a literal None. However it adds a bit of bloat to the code so if you're against it do let me know.
The slight difference shows up in editor tooltips.
image
image

Without Optional (original):

def Base(self, name: str, host: str = None):

With Optional:

def Base(self, name: str, host: typing.Optional[str] = None):

For methods where there are two mutually exclusive parameters, like expire_in and expire_at, I will add overloads for better clarity.

@abdelhai
Copy link
Member

thanks for the clarification! I'm not seeing the benefit from typing.Optional[str], the first screenshot shows everything the developer needs to know to use the API. So, I would leave it out to reduce bloat.

@lemonyte
Copy link
Contributor Author

Update:

  • Improved type hints across all files
  • Added overloads for some methods
  • Minor refactoring changes
  • Combined fetch() and _fetch() methods in _Base() class
  • Minor changes in tests
  • Updated scripts according to CONTRIBUTING.md

@abdelhai abdelhai requested a review from aavshr May 30, 2022 19:43
@lemonyte
Copy link
Contributor Author

@abdelhai it seems the checks are failing due to missing project keys. Can you check the workflow secrets?

@lemonyte lemonyte changed the base branch from master to next August 19, 2022 18:10
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
help wanted Extra attention is needed major new features, api-breaking WIP
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants