Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Fix value receiver hinting #569

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jan 23, 2025
Merged

Fix value receiver hinting #569

merged 3 commits into from
Jan 23, 2025
+9 −8

Conversation

liamhuber
Copy link
Member

No need to hint the property, and because an OutputDataWithInjection can take an OutputData as a value receiver, the hint on the property should be the receiver type, not self.

@liamhuber liamhuber requested a review from XzzX January 21, 2025 22:10
@github-actions GitHub Actions
Copy link

Binder 👈 Launch a binder notebook on branch pyiron/pyiron_workflow/value_receiver

@liamhuber liamhuber mentioned this pull request Jan 21, 2025
Closed
@codacy-production Codacy Production
Copy link

codacy-production bot commented Jan 21, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Coverage summary from Codacy

See diff coverage on Codacy

Coverage variation Diff coverage
✅ +0.00% (target: -1.00%) ✅ 100.00%
Coverage variation details
Coverable lines Covered lines Coverage
Common ancestor commit (14be21b) 3425 3130 91.39%
Head commit (1fbb47f) 3425 (+0) 3130 (+0) 91.39% (+0.00%)

Coverage variation is the difference between the coverage for the head and common ancestor commits of the pull request branch: <coverage of head commit> - <coverage of common ancestor commit>

Diff coverage details
Coverable lines Covered lines Diff coverage
Pull request (#569) 2 2 100.00%

Diff coverage is the percentage of lines that are covered by tests out of the coverable lines that the pull request added or modified: <covered lines added or modified>/<coverable lines added or modified> * 100%

See your quality gate settings    Change summary preferences

Codacy stopped sending the deprecated coverage status on June 5th, 2024. Learn more

@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Jan 21, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 12914267490

Details

  • 0 of 0 changed or added relevant lines in 0 files are covered.
  • 6 unchanged lines in 1 file lost coverage.
  • Overall coverage remained the same at 91.387%
Files with Coverage Reduction New Missed Lines %
channels.py 6 94.74%
Totals Coverage Status
Change from base Build 12877081582: 0.0%
Covered Lines: 3130
Relevant Lines: 3425
💛 - Coveralls

XzzX
XzzX requested changes Jan 22, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@XzzX XzzX left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

https://github.com/pyiron/pyiron_workflow/pull/569/files#diff-fb0ac7f689d5a746d6b22d4902cc0607761f12e967538041ce16ee21b15bfa16R413

This should also be changed?

@liamhuber
Copy link
Member Author

Aha, link didn't work but I bet you're talking about the setter hint. Good catch, that was sloppy of me! I'll take another quick peek later this morning for any other missed spots and correct them

@liamhuber
Update setter hint
2465567 
Signed-off-by: liamhuber <[email protected]>
@liamhuber
Update docstrings
b6d3468 
Signed-off-by: liamhuber <[email protected]>
@liamhuber
Copy link
Member Author

Aha, link didn't work but I bet you're talking about the setter hint. Good catch, that was sloppy of me! I'll take another quick peek later this morning for any other missed spots and correct them

Ok, that was just a shortcoming of the mobile interface -- in the web browser I could see you are indeed highlighting the setter.

I updated the setter and references in docstrings.

@liamhuber
Copy link
Member Author

liamhuber commented Jan 22, 2025 •
edited
Loading

I think we're fully on the same page now, and that this closes outstanding concerns in #566

@liamhuber liamhuber linked an issue Jan 22, 2025 that may be closed by this pull request
value_receiver vs _value_receiver? #566
Closed
@XzzX XzzX merged commit c332bba into main Jan 23, 2025
20 checks passed
@XzzX XzzX deleted the value_receiver branch January 23, 2025 08:01
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@XzzX XzzX XzzX approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

value_receiver vs _value_receiver?
3 participants
@liamhuber @coveralls @XzzX