-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 288
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
AAF Writer: Making precheck() more robust #512
AAF Writer: Making precheck() more robust #512
Conversation
964d928
to
3861494
Compare
…ng new error type AAFValidationError and raising it.
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #512 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 88.37% 88.54% +0.16%
==========================================
Files 68 68
Lines 6969 6981 +12
==========================================
+ Hits 6159 6181 +22
+ Misses 810 800 -10
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
Perhaps I should add a negative test that actually fails the precheck here. |
Hm. I'd like to check some more things before pushing this. Can we pause on this for now? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks great, thanks @freesonluxo!
Actually, I think I might have jumped the gun thinking my code was causing issues. It was user error. This is ready to be pushed! |
This addresses #484 (not fixing it, but making the failure more elegant).
The validate_metadata() function requires access and verification of certain fields in objects that may or not be there. I thought that using a "promise" like pattern led to a much more elegant, robust result. Hopefully this isn't too much overkill, it does allow our precheck to be a lot more expressive.