-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13.8k
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
Partially resolve builtin variable shadowing (A001
)
#39278
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
@@ -958,7 +958,7 @@ def down(preserve_volumes: bool, cleanup_mypy_cache: bool, project_name: str): | |||
@option_verbose | |||
@option_dry_run | |||
@click.argument("exec_args", nargs=-1, type=click.UNPROCESSED) | |||
def exec(exec_args: tuple): | |||
def exec_(exec_args: tuple): |
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.
Overall I like the change! But as a nit: I am not a big fan of just adding a _
as suffix, it feels weird to me. Non blocking though, if others feel it is fine, I am fine
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.
Sorry for late response, basically its suggestion from PEP8 or pycodestyle or something similar, I do not really remember when it comes from originally
Particular in this case it is not really matter how to named it because there is interface to cli and not intended to be called directly, I just want to keep original name as close as possible to exec
which refers to the breeze exec
In the another word I do not have any preferences, so if there is any better naming I could easy rename it
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 think this change specifically is good, but there are some variables below that could use a better rename than just an underscore suffix.
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.
Agree.
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 are only two hard things in Computer Science: cache invalidation and naming things
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.
BTW in this place it could be replaced by exec
-> execute
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 are only two hard things in Computer Science: cache invalidation and naming things
And off-by-one mistakes
This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed in 5 days if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions. |
We have plenty of the builtins variables/function with the same name as a builtins functions or constants .
This PR rename it into the non production codebase (dev, tests) and ignore into the existed one in core/providers module.
^ Add meaningful description above
Read the Pull Request Guidelines for more information.
In case of fundamental code changes, an Airflow Improvement Proposal (AIP) is needed.
In case of a new dependency, check compliance with the ASF 3rd Party License Policy.
In case of backwards incompatible changes please leave a note in a newsfragment file, named
{pr_number}.significant.rst
or{issue_number}.significant.rst
, in newsfragments.