Skip to content

Conversation

@antgonza
Copy link
Member

No description provided.

@ElDeveloper
Copy link
Contributor

This was an installation problem, not a problem with the PR.

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage increased (+0.06%) to 79.66% when pulling e958282 on antgonza:delete-study into 3b51c0d on biocore:master.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It took me a while to understand this comment, would you mind rephrasing it:

_id -> id_
== -> means

@ElDeveloper
Copy link
Contributor

I think this looks good and all the comments are rather minor, can you add either a close or cancel button to the modal view?

@antgonza
Copy link
Member Author

antgonza commented Apr 18, 2015 via email

@ElDeveloper
Copy link
Contributor

That's not true, the "create analysis" modal has a x to close the modal.

@antgonza
Copy link
Member Author

antgonza commented Apr 18, 2015 via email

@ElDeveloper
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks, aside from those comments, the functionality seems to work just fine! Thanks!

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Need to check if the study with id 'id_' exists.

Off topic: This is another reason why I think delete should be an instance method.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

See #1078. For the time being, I added a instantiation of Study(id_) to validate this case and a test just to be sure.

@josenavas
Copy link
Contributor

Few comments. Some of them could have raised a higher problem on the DB and we should check those issues before moving forward...

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage increased (+0.06%) to 79.66% when pulling 803299f on antgonza:delete-study into 3b51c0d on biocore:master.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can you use cls._check_id(id_) instead? Thanks.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

No, but you are only instantiating the object to check if the id exists. I think that is unnecessary given that we have the function _check_id. i.e. _check_id is called in __init__ (among other things) so you avoid all these other things by using the function that you really want.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@antgonza and I discussed this offline. The _check_id method is not a classmethod so it cannot be called here.

As a note, I think this brings up the discussion I started in #1045, so we can avoid all these checks...

@josenavas
Copy link
Contributor

2 more comments @antgonza
I've also checked this on my machine and I like the interface. Thanks!

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage increased (+0.06%) to 79.66% when pulling 53b5b93 on antgonza:delete-study into 3b51c0d on biocore:master.

josenavas added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 21, 2015
@josenavas josenavas merged commit 4bed8a5 into qiita-spots:master Apr 21, 2015
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants