Refactor side methods #27
Conversation
|
@lvrfrc87 ping me when you are available and we can talk about it. |
|
Meeting set-up for 11th Jan at 11.30 GMT +1 |
| Returns: | ||
| Evaluated data, may be anything depending on JMESPath used. | ||
| """ | ||
| if exclude and isinstance(output, Dict): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
NOTE: would need to test what is returned if exclude is an empty list or enforce list length
| if not any(isinstance(i, list) for i in values): # check for multi-nested lists if not found return here | ||
| return values | ||
|
|
||
| for element in values: # process elements to check is lists should be flatten |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If I am not mistaken, this data structure (nested list) is required in order to associate the reference key with each value. FYI: @grelleum
| # TODO: Not sure how this is working becasyse from `jmespath.search` it's supposed to get a flat list | ||
| # of str or Decimals, not another list... | ||
| for item in element: | ||
| if isinstance(item, dict): # raise if there is a dict, path must be more specific to extract data |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
what about if not isinstance(item, list) ?
netcompare/check_type.py
Outdated
| values = flatten_list(values) # flatten list and rewrite values | ||
| break # items are the same, need to check only first to see if this is a nested list | ||
|
|
||
| paired_key_value = associate_key_of_my_value(jmspath_value_parser(path), values) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Better rename in key_value_association ?
|
|
||
| result_item = {} | ||
|
|
||
| # TODO: Why the 'value' dict has always ONE single element? we have to explain |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@chadell are you saying that user can specify more than one parameter to be evaluated?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
why not? the method signature supports it accepting a "list of"
chadell
requested review from
grelleum,
jeffkala,
pke11y,
pszulczewski and
scetron
as code owners
|
To fix the failing tolerance checks, I had to remove: from |
pszulczewski
left a comment
pszulczewski
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGMT, ship it as this is mainly file structure change.
Changes to naming and other refactors can be done with subsequent PRs.
* Consolidate extract_values_from_output into CheckType.get_value * Simplify evaluator's file to contain only entrypoints * Small changes to improve comprehension * Small code refactor and comments * rename check_type name and include the main class in package init for easier import * Consolidate utils functions into less files, with some purpose Co-authored-by: Patryk Szulczewski <patryk.szulczewski@networktocode.com>
Summary of changes:
CheckTypefrom the package initFor sure, this is not perfect, but it's a first step
This PR addresses #20 and #21, proposing a simpler way to interact with helper functions needed by CheckType.