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
Audit our code import structure #3397
Comments
While this doesn't seem important, I just ran into this issue when trying to import a support function |
Currently, functionality lives where they best belong, and gets used from other submodules where appropriate. So, yes, this sometimes make these chains. But what do you prefer—that functions with clearly defined submodule homes live in a general utilities module instead? |
@stefanv (a) but "best" is often debatable. Looking at our import graph could show where functionality might best be moved. In the traceback above, does the laplacian filter really need to live in I honestly get your point — in my proposal (b), it might make our own code harder to follow if we're importing |
I wonder if @njsmith has any advice, based on
https://vorpus.org/blog/beautiful-tracebacks-in-trio-v070/
|
Maybe think of this: |
moved over from deleted Discussion topic
on
and in the PR
I didn't addressed
|
Description
I think we have become a little too lackadaisical in how we reuse our code from different modules across modules. Things used across several modules (segmentation, morphology, etc) should probably be moved to "util".
Here is a user's traceback (from SO) after trying to import
feature.greycomatrix
:That just looks insane to me.
Way to reproduce
[If reporting a bug, please include the following important information:]
Relevant images (if any)skimage.__version__
)The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: