docs: use __init__ method instead of constructor #4088
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #4088 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 85.68% 83.04% -2.65%
==========================================
Files 165 165
Lines 9734 9734
Branches 1463 1463
==========================================
- Hits 8341 8084 -257
- Misses 1136 1385 +249
- Partials 257 265 +8
|
|
You have successfully used `` in many documentation changes, but some changes use a single ` instead, which is incorrect (it applies italics). |
ammarnajjar
force-pushed
the
4086-constructor-initializer-docs
branch
from
9ef093a
to
ecb6cfd
Compare
ammarnajjar
force-pushed
the
4086-constructor-initializer-docs
branch
from
ecb6cfd
to
da8cd94
Compare
|
thanks for the review, I hope I got it right this time |
docs/topics/loaders.rst
Outdated
| @@ -265,7 +265,7 @@ There are several ways to modify Item Loader context values: | |||
| loader.context['unit'] = 'cm' | |||
|
|
|||
| 2. On Item Loader instantiation (the keyword arguments of Item Loader | |||
| constructor are stored in the Item Loader context):: | |||
| ``__init__`` methodare stored in the Item Loader context):: | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| ``__init__`` methodare stored in the Item Loader context):: | |
| ``__init__`` method are stored in the Item Loader context):: |
I’ve seen this issue in a few more replacements below, where the character right after ‘method’ (a space, a dot, a comma) was accidentally removed. Could you please take a look?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@Gallaecio thanks for your patience, change pushed.
ammarnajjar
force-pushed
the
4086-constructor-initializer-docs
branch
from
5219435
to
d21e103
Compare
Thank you for taking your time, these consistency changes can be tiresome but are important to avoid user confusion.
There’s only one more thing I would like to bring up: some comments used ‘constructor’ to refer to methods other than __init__ used to create instances (e.g. from_crawler, from_settings). I believe in those cases the right wording would be “factory method”.
That said, I’m OK with merging the changes as is, I believe they are a significant improvement.
tests/test_utils_misc/__init__.py
Outdated
| # 1. with no alternative __init__ methods | ||
| # 2. with from_settings() __init__ method | ||
| # 3. with from_crawler() __init__ method | ||
| # 4. with from_settings() and from_crawler() __init__ method |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think here "constructor" is replaced with __init__ incorrectly here; "constructor" here is a single word for from_crawler/from_settings/etc., not as a synonym to __init__.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
so should one leave it as is "constructor" or use “factory method” instead as @Gallaecio mentioned in #4088 (review)?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, I think so; no strong opinion about constructor/factory methods, I was always thinking about them as of "alternative constructors", so comment before the change as-is looks fine to me.
scrapy/extensions/feedexport.py
Outdated
| @@ -106,7 +106,7 @@ def __init__(self, uri, access_key=None, secret_key=None, acl=None): | |||
| warnings.warn( | |||
| "Initialising `scrapy.extensions.feedexport.S3FeedStorage` " | |||
| "without AWS keys is deprecated. Please supply credentials or " | |||
| "use the `from_crawler()` constructor.", | |||
| "use the `from_crawler()` ``__init__`` method.", | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
it should be kept as "constructor" here
There was a problem hiding this comment.
when I thought I got them all... bf5c1a3
Issue scrapy#4086 Co-Authored-By: Mikhail Korobov <kmike84@gmail.com>
Resolves #4086