Inconsistent definitions of Data and Target classes

[vniclas]

Hi all,

I came across some inconsistencies between the styles used in data.py and target.py, which make the integration of new subclasses unnecessary complicated.
While data.py is rather consistent and adheres to the proposed usage of getter and setters, target.py could be improved such that the user can experience a common interface across different target classes.

In my opinion, the biggest problem is that Target does not mark its variables as private (leading underscore), which makes it cumbersome to implement proper getter/setter functions to perform type checking. I'd propose to change Target to the code below and add default setter/getters as has been done in the Data class.

class Target(BaseTarget):
    def __init__(self):
        super().__init__()
        self._data = None
        self._confidence = None
        self._action = None

[passalis]

Hi @vniclas,

You are correct. Target should implement setters/getters as you describe. I have opened #98 where I implemented setters and getters for the base classes, as well as for a few more used by AUTH. I think this resolves the main issue (i.e., having these fields as private variables in the Target class). Let me know what you think.

[vniclas]

Hi @passalis,

thanks for looking into the issue. I directly commented on your PR.