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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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
Add runtime validation in setAttribute #348
Add runtime validation in setAttribute #348
Changes from 6 commits
6914ff3
59107ad
8152fdb
1d972e8
c535e0c
59dd5f5
2a5df2b
bacb09b
3e67a9e
ff61b9e
4d74316
8a7ec1c
f05956b
e7e976a
75261d8
ca68796
a9c554a
1321134
269b006
47a5887
669b3eb
4a5812c
6f1dd5d
5225928
b83dc7b
d8e5946
ad58890
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.
this int, float be consolidated into Number here?
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.
If I use
Number
rather thanint, float
here, I will need to change it to:if not isinstance(value, (bool, str, list, tuple)) and not issubclass(type(value), Number):
I think just using
int, float
here is more concise, but I can understand the appeal of being consistent with what is done in_check_attribute_value_sequence
. What do you think?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.
isinstance seems to work fine:
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.
Similarly, please consider using
collections.abc.Sequence
instead oflist, tuple
.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.
And if using
Number
here, also use it in theAttributeValue
type for consistency (and note that this allowsDecimal
andFraction
numbers too).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.
@toumorokoshi I'm not sure why my tests were failing after originally making this change. Just tried this again and it works.
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's a potential edge case where AttributeValues that are lists can be mutated afterward, resulting in invalid types that exporters will run into.
I've added a followup ticket on that here: #352
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.
That's a great catch. Would adding a copy of the list rather than the original list resolve this?
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.
We could store the copies of the sequence values in tuples. Now that you mention this, instead of accepting lists or tuples we should accept sequences.
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.
yeah, I think that's a good solution. Would be good to make a separate PR for that.
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.
should this tuple be moved into a constant in the module? This set should be shared with the tuple on line 213 (could modify line 213 to be that list + list, tuple:
VALID_ATTRIBUTE_TYPES + (list, tuple)
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.
I agree this should be a constant. But do you think it might be misleading to have the constant
VALID_ATTRIBUTE_TYPES
withoutlist, tuple
included, since they are actually valid?Maybe we could define
VALID_ATTRIBUTE_SEQUENCE_TYPES
andVALID_ATTRIBUTE_NON_SEQUENCE_TYPES
, then defineVALID_ATTRIBUTE_TYPES
as the union of the two. What do you think?