Do we want to keep unused code in backscope?

[liammulh]

backscope has unused code. For example, see

backscope/flaskr/nscope/models.py

Line 12 in aeb7595

class User(db.Model):

.

Should we keep it?

I don't think we should keep it. If we ever need it, can get it using Git.

[liammulh]

Also, see:

[gwhitney]

This is two different issues, I think. One is the proposal to remove a single empty file in nscope/math_lib. If the init.py file is not necessary and everything runs fine without this empty file, then I am totally fine with removing it and my tendency would be to do it on the next PR that touches math_lib or at least nscope -- hardly seems worth its own PR.

The other seems to be a proposal to remove the User class in nscope/models.py. There, I'd say which way the balance between "cleanliness" vs "minimize unnecessary code changes" would be determined by the extent to which creating accounts/user validation on the Numberscope website is in the roadmap. If it's a feature that will definitely happen, then I'd strongly suggest leaving the current stub. If it's a feature that has been decided against, or seems really unlikely to ever be motivated enough to occur, then I'd be fine with a PR dedicated to pulling out unnecessary stubs for such a feature, like this User class. And in the great unwashed middle, it becomes a real judgment call.

So we could at an upcoming meeting discuss the likelihood of wanting user accounts for Numberscope. I'll put it on the agenda.

[liammulh]

KS and GW: "Basically, we want state to be stored either in the browser or in a URL. We don't want to have to save user data in a DB."

KS: "We might eventually want some sort of login functionality."

[gwhitney]

I believe the plan is to remove unused code/files at the next opportunity.