Update the return type of methods #676
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank you so much @sanders41 for this PR ❤️, it's a huge job! 🔥 🔥 🔥
and I'm really happy to see it done 😄
I have added some comments
| class KeyUpdate(CamelBase): | ||
| key: str | ||
| name: Optional[str] = None | ||
| description: Optional[str] = None | ||
| actions: Optional[List[str]] = None | ||
| indexes: Optional[List[str]] = None | ||
| expires_at: Optional[datetime] = None | ||
|
|
||
| class Config: | ||
| json_encoders = { | ||
| datetime: lambda v: None | ||
| if not v | ||
| else f"{str(v).split('.', maxsplit=1)[0].replace(' ', 'T')}Z" | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If I understand correctly this class is only used for the return of the update_key method so why not use it directly Key? We can keep this class to provide a Class to update Key like:
class KeyUpdate(CamelBase):
name: str = None
description: str = None
def update_key(self, key_or_uid: str, options: KeyUpdate) -> Key:
But I'm not sure it's worth it. WDYT?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This was a mistake, I should have used Key for the return. What I use KeyUpdate for is exactly what you described. The disadvantage is the user has to import KeyUpdate, but the advantage is the user knows exactly what to send.
I think an argument could be made for both options. I'll let you make the call if you want me to change options to KeyUpdate, or if you want me to remove the class.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't have a strong opinion on this. I tend to agree with you, I find it easier for the user to keep the option. The only advantage of using a KeyUpdate is that there is no risk of making a mistake on how to update the key due to the Strong guidance.
Let's leave it as it is I think it's fine
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank you so much @sanders41 this is perfect! 🔥 🔥 🔥
LGTM! ✨
| class KeyUpdate(CamelBase): | ||
| key: str | ||
| name: Optional[str] = None | ||
| description: Optional[str] = None | ||
| actions: Optional[List[str]] = None | ||
| indexes: Optional[List[str]] = None | ||
| expires_at: Optional[datetime] = None | ||
|
|
||
| class Config: | ||
| json_encoders = { | ||
| datetime: lambda v: None | ||
| if not v | ||
| else f"{str(v).split('.', maxsplit=1)[0].replace(' ', 'T')}Z" | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't have a strong opinion on this. I tend to agree with you, I find it easier for the user to keep the option. The only advantage of using a KeyUpdate is that there is no risk of making a mistake on how to update the key due to the Strong guidance.
Let's leave it as it is I think it's fine
|
bors merge |
|
Build succeeded:
|
693: Update version for the next release (v0.25.0) r=alallema a=alallema ##⚠️ Breaking changes * Update the return type of methods (#676) `@sanders41` ## 🚀 Enhancements * Transform all the `task` methods to a `TaskHandler` class (#662) `@Azanul` Thanks again to `@Azanul,` `@alallema,` `@brunoocasali` and `@sanders41!` 🎉 Co-authored-by: alallema <[email protected]>
Pull Request
Related issue
Fixes #610
Potentially fixes #449
What does this PR do?
TaskInfobut I went ahead and updated them anyways because they are part of Add more precise typing #449PR checklist
Please check if your PR fulfills the following requirements:
Thank you so much for contributing to Meilisearch!