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

version 2.0 #47

Closed
wants to merge 8 commits into from
Closed

version 2.0 #47

wants to merge 8 commits into from

Conversation

petri
Copy link
Collaborator

@petri petri commented Apr 18, 2020

I also created a new branch from current master, so if we want to make a final release based on old codebase, or if someone wants to contribute to it still, that can be done in the 1.4 branch.

@petri
Copy link
Collaborator Author

petri commented Apr 19, 2020

@psolin I'm happy to fork & take over full maintenance of this package if you no longer wish to spend any time on it?

@psolin
Copy link
Owner

psolin commented Apr 19, 2020

It’s been a day since you created this pull request. I’ll take a look and merge it.

Copy link
Owner

@psolin psolin left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Since this is a large refactoring, Readme needs to be updated if the old “silly” method is going away.

Is there a way to do this without calling get_terms() and storing it in a variable? 2.0 may need to be SQLite-driven given the amount of data needing to be referenced.

Edited readme, removed db code
Removed db items
Termdata now matches iso3166 names
Iso test also removed
@psolin psolin self-requested a review April 19, 2020 20:30
@psolin
Copy link
Owner

psolin commented Apr 19, 2020

Take a look and let me know if this works.

@petri
Copy link
Collaborator Author

petri commented Apr 19, 2020

I don't see why SQLite or such would be needed for anything, it's a huge overkill. The terms are loaded & processed when application starts and are then kept in memory as regular Python objects. There's just I think three hundred short unique text terms, and then the country names - this is nothing.

@psolin
Copy link
Owner

psolin commented Apr 19, 2020

I agree. I ended up removing that and just edited the terms in the list.

@petri
Copy link
Collaborator Author

petri commented Apr 20, 2020

Regarding README, I did not update it yet since I did not add any deprecation warnings of the old way either. I was thinking of suggesting a deprecation in a future minor PR.

If there's something you'd like changed in the PR, please add some review notes in the PR. I can then either make the changes or first explain why it's done this way. I guess that's the whole idea of collaborative PRs. As reviewer & package author, you can then choose to accept or reject the changes. There's no need for the reviewer to spend his time to actually fix anything in a PR - rather, that's the job of the person submitting the PR.

Besides changing README & adding some nice termdata improvements, It seems to me you've also changed the imports in:

cleanco/classify.py
cleanco/clean.py
cleanco/cleanco.py

Is there a reason for this? Those changes break the package & tests. The setup.py file seems to be changed also. Is that intentional?

@psolin
Copy link
Owner

psolin commented Apr 20, 2020

You can revert those import lines. I was having issues running the package, but I think that I needed to do it in a virtualenv instead of how I was doing it. Everything did check out from my testing. I'm not sure what happened with setup.py, but that can be reverted as well.

Check the readme edits that I made and let me know if that write up makes sense at all.

@psolin psolin self-requested a review April 20, 2020 20:24
@petri
Copy link
Collaborator Author

petri commented Apr 21, 2020

Ok given your ok for the PR content, I just first applied your termdata changes to master and then committed my original 2.0 PR changes on top of it. So this PR can be just closed & forgotten.

If we want to deprecate the old class-based approach, it's easy to do now whenever you want.

@petri petri closed this Apr 21, 2020
@petri
Copy link
Collaborator Author

petri commented Apr 21, 2020

The 2.0 branch can be deleted, unless we want to save your README changes from there first.

@psolin psolin deleted the 2.0 branch April 21, 2020 15:10
@petri petri removed a link to an issue Apr 24, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
2 participants