Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
[WIP] Protobuf Performance Refactor #230
[WIP] Protobuf Performance Refactor #230
Changes from 4 commits
a085789
ff3c6f0
1109927
d04f72e
f57c932
fe17aae
d723f18
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
Probably worth profiling here vs.
isinstance(val, bytes)
, and maybetype(val) is bytes
. E.g.:and similarly for the other conversions below.
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.
Can you make it more clear what signature
set_coercion
is expected to have? What what types does it take and return?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.
Okay, from usage it looks like it it takes one param and returns one param, with the types dependent on the field type. Can you clarify that in a comment?
Also, what do you think about providing an empty default instead of checking
set_coercion == None
?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.
There used to be a no-op default, but @tseaver opined that this pattern might be cleaner. Either way, expanding on the comments.
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.
Call
instance
message
instead? You seemed to prefer that below.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.
An interesting idea. It seems to be convention when using attribute descriptors like this to name the variable
instance
, so I think I prefer that here, but I could be convinced otherwise.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.
As the comment says, this is hacky. Sadly, it is a lynch-pin for the whole refactor.
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.
This comment is a little confusing. The 'either' has no second branch.