Skip to content

remote: small .save_info()/.get_checksum() cleanup #2835

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 28, 2019

Conversation

Suor
Copy link
Contributor

@Suor Suor commented Nov 22, 2019

No description provided.

Copy link
Contributor

@pared pared left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@Suor good catch. Approved.

Idea for another issue:
Do you think it would be a good idea to reconsider how we handle self.info in Output?
We assign it here and here.
Maybe we should initialize it as empty dict in the constructor instead of None, and fill it in mentioned places using get_checksum?
I think that self.info[PARAM_CHECKSUM] = self.get_checksum is more readable than
self.info = self.save_info, also that would let us remove save_info.

@Suor
Copy link
Contributor Author

Suor commented Nov 26, 2019

@pared This will really be

self.info[self.remote.PARAM_CHECKSUM] = self.remote.get_checksum(self.path_info)

which doesn't look that nice.

@Suor
Copy link
Contributor Author

Suor commented Nov 26, 2019

@MrOutis may you take a look at it?

Copy link

@ghost ghost left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

👍

@efiop efiop merged commit 00744bc into iterative:master Nov 28, 2019
@efiop
Copy link
Contributor

efiop commented Nov 28, 2019

Thank you @Suor ! 🙏

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants