fix: 🩹 update verify_properties_are_well_formed() based on changes to the Properties classes
#832
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
We want this function to "focus" on whether the given properties are well-formed. Not whether they are complete; we have the verify_properties_are_complete for that.
…ince we use the compact_dict representation
signekb
commented
Nov 1, 2024
|
|
||
| errors = [ | ||
| error | ||
| for error in report.errors | ||
| + [error for task in report.tasks for error in task.errors] | ||
| if error.type == error_type | ||
| if "required" not in error.message and error.type == error_type |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This workaround, for example, is very non-ideal.
- To filter the required field errors, we have to go into the error message
- We have to filter on error type twice (here and on L28) to ensure we only catch the errors we intend to (either
PackageErrororResourceError)
signekb
commented
Nov 1, 2024
| @@ -24,14 +25,17 @@ def verify_properties_are_well_formed(properties: dict, error_type: str) -> dict | |||
| non_empty_properties = { | |||
| key: value for key, value in properties.items() if value != "" | |||
| } | |||
| report = validate(non_empty_properties) | |||
| report = validate(non_empty_properties, type=error_type.replace("-error", "")) | |||
signekb
commented
Nov 1, 2024
| ] | ||
|
|
||
| if properties == {}: | ||
| errors = [Error(note="Empty properties provided")] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We use Error as a general error type instead of PackageError and ResourceError respectively.
signekb
changed the title
verify_properties_are_well_formed() based on changes to the Properties classesverify_properties_are_well_formed() based on changes to the Properties classes
martonvago
approved these changes
Nov 1, 2024
lwjohnst86
approved these changes
Nov 3, 2024
lwjohnst86
merged commit 933e069
into
fix/avoid-overwriting-non-edited-properties
2 checks passed
lwjohnst86
deleted the
fix/update-verify_properties_are_well_formed-based-on-properties
branch
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description
NB this is a stacked PR merging to #808
This PR changes the behaviour of
verify_properties_are_wellformed()based on the changes to thePropertiesclasses in #808This work was done in collaboration with @martonvago 🌷 It's not pretty, but it gets the work done for now.
During this, we talked about #830 and how we think not using
frictionless-pycould simplify the work here as well, since thevalidate()function keeps surprising us by not working as we expect it to.This PR needs an in-depth review.
Checklist