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
DM-11664: Flake8 fixes #76
Conversation
self.dataId, | ||
self.mapper, | ||
self.componentInfo, | ||
self.repository) | ||
|
||
def __repr__(self): | ||
return "ComponentInfo(datasetType=%s, obj=%s, setter=%s, getter=%s)" % ( | ||
self.datasetType, self.obj, self.setter, self.getter) |
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.
this is the definition to remove.
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 there's another one at line 146...
Retain the one that had the most detailed information.
return "ComponentInfo(datasetType=%s, obj=%s, setter=%s, getter=%s)" % ( | ||
self.datasetType, self.obj, self.setter, self.getter) | ||
|
||
return 'ButlerComposite(assembler:%s, disassembler:%s, python:%s, dataId:%s, mapper:%s, ' \ |
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.
Of the three, I kept this one as it looked the most detailed.
…test For some tests we are testing that the constructor runs without error but not using the return value from the constructor. This fails flake8 so this change adds tests for the return values to ensure they are of the expected type.
self.assertTrue(os.path.exists(os.path.join(self.testDir, 'repositoryCfg.yaml'))) | ||
|
||
butler2 = dp.Butler(inputs=uri) |
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 removed this since it seemed to be the same call as the next one but not protected by a try block.
No description provided.