Options for multiple paths #997
Conversation
| for pathspec in pathspecs: | ||
| if pathspec not in parse: | ||
| parse[pathspec] = {} | ||
| cls._update_options(parse[pathspec], options) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Perhaps something like:
parse[pathspec] = merged_options(parse.get(pathspec, {}), options)
would be nicer?
|
|
||
|
|
||
| @classmethod | ||
| def _update_options(cls, old_opts, new_opts): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As a last comment, maybe this should be called _merge_options as it now creates a new dictionary instead of updating an existing one?
|
Looks great, thanks for the contribution and thanks for all the new unit tests! You have already addressed most of my comments and I am ready to merge once you address my latest suggestion (renaming |
|
Will do. Thank you for your guidance :-) |
|
Rename should be done now and I added one more test to reflect our decision on precedence in merges. I had to replace the commits with new author information which includes my private mail, so do not be confused that everything is new. |
|
All looks good so I am now merging. Thanks once again for contributing! |
|
This pull request has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs. |
This implements issue #995. I have not yet tested the PR with python 2.
I'm very interested in your thoughts concerning coding style, since I have tried to follow your lead.