Skip to content

CAPI Draft #1183

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

Draft
wants to merge 21 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

CAPI Draft #1183

wants to merge 21 commits into from

Conversation

asvetlov
Copy link
Member

@asvetlov asvetlov commented Jun 19, 2025

No description provided.

@asvetlov
Copy link
Member Author

The PR contains a draft for CAPI with tests.

For now, only a minimal subset of functions is exposed, just for the idea demonstration.
Cython bindings are to be done, they are built on top of C API anyway.

Tests are attached.

@Vizonex, you might be interested in the PR. It is based on your work, but it is slightly different in implementation details.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Jun 19, 2025

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 73.72263% with 36 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 97.57%. Comparing base (8ea6942) to head (bfee715).

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
tests/test_capi.py 73.72% 35 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

❌ Your patch check has failed because the patch coverage (3.00%) is below the target coverage (95.00%). You can increase the patch coverage or adjust the target coverage.
❌ Your project check has failed because the head coverage (95.19%) is below the target coverage (100.00%). You can increase the head coverage or adjust the target coverage.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1183      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   98.39%   97.57%   -0.82%     
==========================================
  Files          27       28       +1     
  Lines        3988     4125     +137     
  Branches      735      736       +1     
==========================================
+ Hits         3924     4025     +101     
- Misses         17       52      +35     
- Partials       47       48       +1     
Flag Coverage Δ
CI-GHA 97.57% <73.72%> (-0.82%) ⬇️
MyPy 80.24% <72.26%> (-0.28%) ⬇️
pytest 96.26% <3.00%> (-3.59%) ⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

Copy link

codspeed-hq bot commented Jun 19, 2025

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging #1183 will not alter performance

Comparing capi (bfee715) with master (8ea6942)

Summary

✅ 245 untouched benchmarks

Copy link
Member

@webknjaz webknjaz left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The full-blown packaging setup seems like huge overengineering. There's better ways to integrate with pytest that wouldn't require additional layers of complexity.

@asvetlov
Copy link
Member Author

The full-blown packaging setup seems like huge overengineering. There's better ways to integrate with pytest that wouldn't require additional layers of complexity.

Sorry, I don't follow your idea.

  1. We need a compiled package for testing C (and later Cython) APIs.
  2. This package shouldn't be a part of multidict itself; it is required for testing only, and multidict should already be installed for compiling the test helper.

If you have a better idea, please don't hesitate to push a working code to show your thoughts.

@Vizonex
Copy link

Vizonex commented Jun 20, 2025

The full-blown packaging setup seems like huge overengineering. There's better ways to integrate with pytest that wouldn't require additional layers of complexity.

Sorry, I don't follow your idea.

  1. We need a compiled package for testing C (and later Cython) APIs.
  2. This package shouldn't be a part of multidict itself; it is required for testing only, and multidict should already be installed for compiling the test helper.

If you have a better idea, please don't hesitate to push a working code to show your thoughts.

@asvetlov I agree with you since I spent more time than I originally anticipated trying to expose multidict's inner workings and I seem to keep having to second-guess does this go here or does this go here? At the end of the day the unpredictability of some parts of the CAPI needs a better foundation. I am willing to drop my things for a second time and just work on helping you get this passed a second time. At the end of the day. The practice I get from doing this has paid off for me in the long-run and I seem to be learning new stuff the deeper I've dived into this.

I don't even feel upset at all about dropping older pull requests since I seem to keep learning new stuff. I am actually ok with closing #1178 and moving to this pull request so that we can develop a safer implementation to use. I'll hold onto a copy of my old pull request in my folders incase I need to utilize some of it's information later.

@Vizonex
Copy link

Vizonex commented Jun 20, 2025

@asvetlov I'm forking your draft instead since it has a better foundation to work upon the only thing I could see being a problem is the api calls for the capsule to be a little bit too generic since you never know if someone plans to compile this CAPI with another capsuled module. The last thing you would want is for someone to end up using the same names and colliding with it when compiling everything.

@asvetlov
Copy link
Member Author

@Vizonex, your work is very valuable.
I've borrowed many ideas from your PRs, let's finish the work together.
I'll review #1185 soon, thank you for it!

@Vizonex
Copy link

Vizonex commented Jun 21, 2025

@Vizonex, your work is very valuable. I've borrowed many ideas from your PRs, let's finish the work together. I'll review #1185 soon, thank you for it!

Your welcome. I seem to be learning new stuff as I am doing this.

@psf-chronographer psf-chronographer bot added the bot:chronographer:provided There is a change note present in this PR label Jun 22, 2025
@Vizonex
Copy link

Vizonex commented Jun 22, 2025

@asvetlov Crap I just remembered I deleted my old fork I still have the code on hand and we can quickly remerge it and resume where I left off my bad. The accidental merge confused me :/

@asvetlov
Copy link
Member Author

@Vizonex here is my local copy of your branch; you can use it on your own.

Sorry again; I unintentionally pushed your branch with code reformatting in the command line, but the target was my branch. GitHub processed it as a merge. git sometimes allows dangerous things :(

@Vizonex
Copy link

Vizonex commented Jun 28, 2025

@asvetlov Let me write some more API Functions now that I know that you've merged my things.

@Vizonex
Copy link

Vizonex commented Jun 28, 2025

@asvetlov I made a copy of my old branch and archived it to https://github.com/Vizonex/multidict/tree/vizonex-capi so that I could resync my branch with yours again. You can use it as a reference if we need to later but let me go ahead and resync with your changes first.

@Vizonex
Copy link

Vizonex commented Jun 30, 2025

No Idea how we should go about implementing CIMultiDict and CIMultiDictProxy but now I have done everything else.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bot:chronographer:provided There is a change note present in this PR
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants