-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
1368 disturbance registry #1391
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
Open
dalonsoa
wants to merge
7
commits into
1367_disturbance_model
Choose a base branch
from
1368_disturbance_registry
base: 1367_disturbance_model
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
7 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
a759c8b
Generalize discover_models function
dalonsoa 7e1a652
Implement discover disturbances.
dalonsoa 0260441
Refactor register module
dalonsoa 9aa2081
Add register_disturbance and the disturbance registry.
dalonsoa 9473865
Add disturbance registry and related stuff
dalonsoa f317eb7
Add checks to BaseDisturbance init_subclass
dalonsoa 0249e9a
Expand docstrings with generic T information
dalonsoa File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
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.
I think what is going on here is that we'd "ideally" have this as:
But because we can't import those two classes outside of the functions because of circularity (which bugs me but 🤷 ) we instead use this to tell the function that it is generically getting a type of something (not an instance etc.).
Is that right - if so, could you add a comment to that effect? It's probably pretty entry level but right now generic typing is out of my comfort zone, so it would be useful to have an explanation to hand 😄 .
Of course, if my explanation isn't right, then it needs a comment even more!
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.
Actually, no. We do want type[T] - i.e. to use generics - because that way I am locking the types of the inputs and outputs together. It's like saying that whatever the input, the output is a list if those same things. In your example, from the typing perspective there is no relationship between input and output. I could have
type[BaseModel]as input and have a list oftype[BaseDisturbance]as outputs.Generics are really powerful, but can also be quite confusing.
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.
Got it. Thanks.
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.
Docstring expanded with some details.