Conversation
Coverage report
Click to see where and how coverage changed
This report was generated by python-coverage-comment-action |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| return hints.get("return", Any) | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| def make_method_spec( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
maybe we should rename the method to make_method_pipeline?
| ) | ||
| fields_in = get_func_fields(func, is_in_class=is_in_class) | ||
| fields_out: list[FieldOut] = [] | ||
| for r in transformers: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't understand why the loop variable has the name r, and not, for example, transformer.
| FieldDestination, | ||
| FieldIn, | ||
| FieldOut, | ||
| from .client import Dumper, Loader |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
are relative imports preferable?
| def make_request( | ||
| client: BaseClient, | ||
| spec: MethodSpec, | ||
| spec: MethodPipeline, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
would it be better to rename the argument to pipeline? spec is used in many places in the project for MethodSpec it may seem that MethodSpec is enough here.
| from .method_spec import MethodSpec | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| class FieldDestination(Enum): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
maybe add a unique decorator for the future?
| raise NotImplementedError | ||
|
|
||
| @abstractmethod | ||
| def transform_fields( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
don't we inherit the same definition from Transformer? We don't have to duplicate the definition.
2 participants
No description provided.