Various consistency updates in documentation. #61
Conversation
briancline
commented
Mar 8, 2013
- Consistent docblock formats
- Standardize on Sphinx param formatting
- Word wrap super long lines in README and LICENSE
- Add some missing doc blocks
- Add TODO items where doc blocks need explanation
- Simplify some wording
- Remove a few needless blank lines
- Fix some minor comment formatting (PEP8 consistency)
- Consistent docblock formats - Standardize on Sphinx param formatting - Word wrap super long lines in README and LICENSE - Add some missing doc blocks - Add TODO items where doc blocks need explanation - Simplify some wording - Remove a few needless blank lines - Fix some minor comment formatting (PEP8 consistency)
| """ | ||
| self.client = client | ||
| self.ssl = self.client['Security_Certificate'] | ||
|
|
||
| def list_certs(self, method='all'): | ||
| """ List all certificates. | ||
|
|
||
| :param method: # TODO: explain this param |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
the 'method' param has three valid options: 'all', 'expired', 'valid'
|
For cases where we know what the ID represents, something like "zone_id" or "device_id" would be more appropriate. In the case of the base ID of any generic item in the client, "item_id" doesn't provide any more information than "id". Simply prefixing it with an underscore would avoid the collision. So, "_id". |
|
However, in almost all cases the existence of Python's id() is irrelevant. When testing the identity of two objects, you'd hope to have a handle on each - not their memory addresses, which id() represents. The fact that: id(obj_a) == id(obj_b)is identical to the far more Pythonic: obj_a is obj_bmeans I won't be heartbroken about this collision. |
|
I was going to address the above concerns in a revision of this pull request -- what changed in the manual merge? |
|
Ah, no worries there. Need to push out a release ASAP for someone. @sudorandom removed __format_filter_dict() in b1c09f9 which caused a conflict. The manual merge only dealt with the conflict so we could tag a release. None of the mentioned concerns have been addressed. Rebase from master and those can be addressed for v2.2.0 |
|
Ahh, gotcha. Just curious. I'll rebase and prepare some more stuff when I get back in tomorrow. |
|
Regarding the questions around If everyone agrees they'd like to stick with the |
|
|