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

Updates documentation on dynamic item classes. #1018

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Jan 19, 2015

Conversation

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@barraponto
Contributor

barraponto commented Jan 19, 2015

Fixes #398
Used dict comprehension for more pythonic code.

return type(class_name, (DictItem,), field_dict)
return type(class_name, (DictItem,), {'fields': fields})

This comment has been minimized.

@nramirezuy

nramirezuy Jan 19, 2015

Member

return type(class_name, (DictItem,), {'fields': fields}) this is wrong; should be return type(class_name, (DictItem,), fields)

@nramirezuy

nramirezuy Jan 19, 2015

Member

return type(class_name, (DictItem,), {'fields': fields}) this is wrong; should be return type(class_name, (DictItem,), fields)

This comment has been minimized.

@barraponto

barraponto Jan 19, 2015

Contributor

Oh, it is needed at least since 0.22.2 #398 (comment)

@barraponto

barraponto Jan 19, 2015

Contributor

Oh, it is needed at least since 0.22.2 #398 (comment)

This comment has been minimized.

@nramirezuy

nramirezuy Jan 19, 2015

Member

You are right, I didn't noticed the type.

@nramirezuy

nramirezuy Jan 19, 2015

Member

You are right, I didn't noticed the type.

nramirezuy added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 19, 2015

Merge pull request #1018 from barraponto/dynamic_item_practice_docs
Updates documentation on dynamic item classes.

@nramirezuy nramirezuy merged commit 2183984 into scrapy:master Jan 19, 2015

1 check passed

continuous-integration/travis-ci The Travis CI build passed
Details
@barraponto

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@barraponto

barraponto Jan 19, 2015

Contributor

This should be backported to 0.24 too, since the docs are misleading there...

Contributor

barraponto commented Jan 19, 2015

This should be backported to 0.24 too, since the docs are misleading there...

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment