Add skipping output #180
Add skipping output #180
Conversation
|
Don't worry, tests are coming. Will make a note in the dev docs though. There is a doc for how updates aree scheduled but i'll update it. |
Codecov ReportPatch coverage:
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #180 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 94.65% 94.68% +0.03%
==========================================
Files 41 41
Lines 1309 1318 +9
==========================================
+ Hits 1239 1248 +9
Misses 70 70
☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
abbiemery
force-pushed
the
add_skipping_output
branch
from
fe7367b to
3de73ef
Compare
|
@callumforrester , @DiamondJoseph as requested, the issue to add further testing #183 . |
|
|
||
| Args: | ||
| message (Union[Interrupt, Output, ComponentException]): An Interrupt, | ||
| message (Union[Interrupt, Output, ComponentException, Skip]): An Interrupt, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should there be some nice name for this union of useful message types?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There is, it's called ComponentOutput. Also, does anything break if you just remove the type from the docstring if it's in the function signature? Seems pointless to duplicate it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What was there initially should instead be the defined type alias ComponentOutput. However, I intentionally left skip out of it because it doesn't nicely fit in the Input or Output message types, since they are not sent like the other messages. I felt it prudent to keep the differentiation.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@callumforrester No, nothing breaks per say, its just the Google doc string convention which we have kept to for the rest of the code base, so I'm reluctant to change it in one place.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What should have been flagged, is the function signature has the wrong type in, so I'll fix that now.
@callumforrester no need for #184 , I'll roll them together. |
Co-authored-by: DiamondJoseph <[email protected]>
This is an option for propagation of skipped devices. It is not particularly elegant, but it does avoid changing the event routing or anything vital for now until we find a better option that we are happy with and that is optimal.