return also syndrome and v_node validity from decoder (Sourcery refactored) #27
Conversation
![sourcery-ai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/48477?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
| raise ValueError("No v-node with uid " + str(v_uid) + " in graph") | ||
| raise ValueError(f"No v-node with uid {str(v_uid)} in graph") | ||
| if c_uid not in self.c_nodes: | ||
| raise ValueError("No c-node with uid " + str(c_uid) + " in graph") | ||
| raise ValueError(f"No c-node with uid {str(c_uid)} in graph") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Function TannerGraph.add_edges_by_uid refactored with the following changes:
- Use f-string instead of string concatenation (
use-fstring-for-concatenation)
| raise ValueError("No v-node with name " + v_name + " in graph") | ||
| raise ValueError(f"No v-node with name {v_name} in graph") | ||
| c_uid = [node.uid for node in self.c_nodes.values() if node.name == c_name] | ||
| if not c_uid: | ||
| raise ValueError("No c-node with name " + c_name + " in graph") | ||
| raise ValueError(f"No c-node with name {c_name} in graph") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Function TannerGraph.add_edges_by_name refactored with the following changes:
- Use f-string instead of string concatenation (
use-fstring-for-concatenation)
| if not by_name: | ||
| return self.edges | ||
| return {(self.v_nodes.get(vn).name, self.c_nodes.get(cn).name) for vn, cn in self.edges} # type: ignore | ||
| return ( | ||
| { | ||
| (self.v_nodes.get(vn).name, self.c_nodes.get(cn).name) | ||
| for vn, cn in self.edges | ||
| } | ||
| if by_name | ||
| else self.edges | ||
| ) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Function TannerGraph.get_edges refactored with the following changes:
- Swap if/else branches of if expression to remove negation (
swap-if-expression) - Lift code into else after jump in control flow (
reintroduce-else) - Replace if statement with if expression (
assign-if-exp)
This removes the following comments ( why? ):
# type: ignore
Sourcery Code Quality Report❌ Merging this PR will decrease code quality in the affected files by 0.27%.
Here are some functions in these files that still need a tune-up:
Legend and ExplanationThe emojis denote the absolute quality of the code:
The 👍 and 👎 indicate whether the quality has improved or gotten worse with this pull request. Please see our documentation here for details on how these metrics are calculated. We are actively working on this report - lots more documentation and extra metrics to come! Help us improve this quality report! |
Pull Request #26 refactored by Sourcery.
If you're happy with these changes, merge this Pull Request using the Squash and merge strategy.
NOTE: As code is pushed to the original Pull Request, Sourcery will
re-run and update (force-push) this Pull Request with new refactorings as
necessary. If Sourcery finds no refactorings at any point, this Pull Request
will be closed automatically.
See our documentation here.
Run Sourcery locally
Reduce the feedback loop during development by using the Sourcery editor plugin:
Review changes via command line
To manually merge these changes, make sure you're on the
bp_decoderbranch, then run:Help us improve this pull request!