JSON-Export (Sourcery refactored)

[sourcery-ai]

Pull Request #20 refactored by Sourcery.

If you're happy with these changes, merge this Pull Request using the Squash and merge strategy.

NOTE: As code is pushed to the original Pull Request, Sourcery will
re-run and update (force-push) this Pull Request with new refactorings as
necessary. If Sourcery finds no refactorings at any point, this Pull Request
will be closed automatically.

See our documentation here.

Run Sourcery locally

Reduce the feedback loop during development by using the Sourcery editor plugin:

• VS Code
• PyCharm

Review changes via command line

To manually merge these changes, make sure you're on the JSON-Export branch, then run:

git fetch origin sourcery/JSON-Export
git merge --ff-only FETCH_HEAD
git reset HEAD^

Help us improve this pull request!

[sourcery-ai]

Function CMDmain.__init__ refactored with the following changes:

• Use set when checking membership of a collection of literals (collection-into-set)

[sourcery-ai]

Sourcery Code Quality Report

Merging this PR leaves code quality unchanged.

Quality metrics	Before	After	Change
Complexity	5.21 ⭐	5.21 ⭐	0.00
Method Length	133.89 😞	133.89 😞	0.00
Working memory	11.74 😞	11.74 😞	0.00
Quality	55.15% 🙂	55.15% 🙂	0.00%

Other metrics	Before	After	Change
Lines	320	320	0

Changed files	Quality Before	Quality After	Quality Change
tanabe/main.py	55.15% 🙂	55.15% 🙂	0.00%

Here are some functions in these files that still need a tune-up:

File	Function	Complexity	Length	Working Memory	Quality	Recommendation
tanabe/main.py	CMDmain.calculation	10 🙂	269 ⛔	17 ⛔	34.69% 😞	Try splitting into smaller methods. Extract out complex expressions
tanabe/main.py	CMDmain.ci_cut	7 ⭐	210 ⛔	17 ⛔	40.80% 😞	Try splitting into smaller methods. Extract out complex expressions
tanabe/main.py	CMDmain.__init__	4 ⭐	115 🙂	13 😞	57.83% 🙂	Extract out complex expressions
tanabe/main.py	CMDmain.ts_print	4 ⭐	167 😞	9 🙂	59.29% 🙂	Try splitting into smaller methods

Legend and Explanation

The emojis denote the absolute quality of the code:

• ⭐ excellent
• 🙂 good
• 😞 poor
• ⛔ very poor

The 👍 and 👎 indicate whether the quality has improved or gotten worse with this pull request.

---

Please see our documentation here for details on how these metrics are calculated.

We are actively working on this report - lots more documentation and extra metrics to come!

Help us improve this quality report!