Clean up keyword argument name, using URL.join(url=...), not URL.join(relative_url=...). #1129
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
tomchristie
changed the title
|
Superceded by #1130? |
|
No, just different issues. |
Merged
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Another niggly bit of API cleanup, that's a hangover from past implementation details.
Now that the
URL()class is agnostic to relative/absolute URLs, the keyword argument naming inURL.join(relative_url=...)isn't appropriate.I think we can get away with a unilateral rename, given that it's not really a very end-user facing bit of API, and it'll be called out in the 0.14 release notes.