-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 134
Remove unused config options #806
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
Conversation
244d74e
to
d92cef9
Compare
d94df18
to
c0cf269
Compare
36c93d4
to
da6383c
Compare
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #806 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 81.23% 81.34% +0.10%
==========================================
Files 170 170
Lines 46826 46833 +7
Branches 11465 11432 -33
==========================================
+ Hits 38041 38097 +56
+ Misses 6594 6549 -45
+ Partials 2191 2187 -4
|
db1f5d2
to
b607e55
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks like an awful lot of long, detailed and tedious work. Great job @Armavica! I left a few comments but once those are done, I think this should be good to go.
path = os.path.realpath(path) | ||
if os.access(path, os.F_OK): # Do it exist? | ||
path = path.resolve() | ||
if path.exists(): | ||
if not os.access(path, os.R_OK | os.W_OK | os.X_OK): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This could be changed as well to use path.stat().st_mode
, to avoid using os.access
, but it might not be worth it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes indeed, but not sure it's worth it indeed. I think it would make this code more verbose.
b189749
to
90ecf06
Compare
@ricardoV94 I am not sure how to handle this PR regarding labels: Should the removal of unused config options be considered major? |
Nah, because I expect exactly 0 people were trying to set it |
Do you want to squash or rebase and merge? |
I would rather not squash, having all the commits makes it easier to bisect and debug if needed. But if you think this is too many commits I can rebase and make less of them. |
Yeah maybe the pathlib ones can be merged together |
e3faa72
to
d2106bf
Compare
And add type hints to configparser.py
Ugh, Windows strikes again. @Armavica, @ricardoV94, please see https://dev.azure.com/conda-forge/feedstock-builds/_build/results?buildId=974087&view=logs&jobId=7df5a329-fcdb-5857-5720-a5dae94c0641&j=7df5a329-fcdb-5857-5720-a5dae94c0641&t=67fc0302-7ecf-51cb-2fd0-391a1258793e Not sure exactly what's wrong or how to fix it. 😞 |
Ah, a problem that could have been caught with more types! |
And tests :D |
Description
check_duplicate_key.py
cmodule.py
which I didn't do because it's a lot of work and I am understanding that it is going to go soon.Related Issue
Checklist
Type of change