resolve transl-tracklisting relations for pseudo releases #4714
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
sampsyo
reviewed
Mar 25, 2023
|
Awesome! It looks like there is one minor conflict with a recent change to |
|
@sampsyo I'll try to get around rebasing soon |
|
hey @sampsyo sorry that it took months but I've rebase the branch |
sampsyo
requested changes
Jun 24, 2023
sampsyo
approved these changes
Jun 26, 2023
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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
Fixes #654
As in the issue suggested I implemented the "easiest/most obvious approach".
It fetches release relations and "follows" the ones for the type transl-tracklisting for pseudo releases. The additional data gets merged with the pseudo-release. I am not 100% sure if I included all applicable fields for the merge. I left the pseudo-releases id's as is.
This change makes it near impossible to differentiate the pseudo releases from the actual releases in the ui, so I added that to
disambig_string. Are there any unwanted side effects from that change?A small screenshot for reference:
This implementation has almost the same approach as the plugin I wrote recently. Said plugin hasn't caused any issues for me yet. This PR handles things much cleaner tho (it doesn't have to fetch pseudo-releases twice for instance).
I feel like my code ended up being a bit awkward, I haven't written any serious python in a long while and pep8 feels a bit tedious.
To Do
docs/to describe it.)docs/changelog.rstnear the top of the document.)