Skip to content
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

refactor should_use_ephemeral_cache #7262

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Oct 28, 2019

Conversation

sbidoul
Copy link
Member

@sbidoul sbidoul commented Oct 27, 2019

Towards #6852

Following @chrahunt advice that no PR is small enough, I start with this refactoring of should_use_ephemeral_cache into should_build and should_cache. The new functions have independent tests. Next step will be to remove should_use_ephemeral_cache.

It's not exactly tiny, but it should hopefully be easy to understand.

I think all review comments from #6853 have been handled, including a #6853 (comment) (in a separate commit).

I have one question: which kind of newsfragment file should I create for a refactor like this?

@sbidoul sbidoul force-pushed the refactor-should_use_ephem_cache-sbi branch from 34148bf to 283eb23 Compare October 27, 2019 17:35
@chrahunt chrahunt added skip news Does not need a NEWS file entry (eg: trivial changes) type: refactor Refactoring code labels Oct 27, 2019
Copy link
Member

@chrahunt chrahunt left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM.

@sbidoul sbidoul force-pushed the refactor-should_use_ephem_cache-sbi branch from 283eb23 to e638e24 Compare October 28, 2019 21:56
@chrahunt chrahunt merged commit 3089e87 into pypa:master Oct 28, 2019
@chrahunt
Copy link
Member

Thanks @sbidoul! To answer your question about news files - a <random>.trivial file is fine for refactoring work, then a .feature (or other applicable type) for the PR that actually makes a change.

@sbidoul sbidoul deleted the refactor-should_use_ephem_cache-sbi branch October 29, 2019 08:02
@sbidoul
Copy link
Member Author

sbidoul commented Oct 29, 2019

Thanks @chrahunt and @xavfernandez for the swift review and merge. I continue in #7268.

@lock lock bot added the auto-locked Outdated issues that have been locked by automation label Nov 28, 2019
@lock lock bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Nov 28, 2019
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
auto-locked Outdated issues that have been locked by automation skip news Does not need a NEWS file entry (eg: trivial changes) type: refactor Refactoring code
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants