🎨 Just improving logic structure. #6351
Merged
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
…orkaround_6327 # Conflicts: # holoviews/core/data/xarray.py
hoxbro
added
the
type: enhancement
|
Thanks for the PR. |
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #6351 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 88.48% 88.48%
=======================================
Files 323 323
Lines 68162 68162
=======================================
Hits 60313 60313
Misses 7849 7849 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
1 task
|
This pull request has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs. |
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
While I'm not so sure, whether you can accept such PR or not.
In the meanwhile, I'm trying to fix #6327. I sent the PR #6333.
However, at that moment, I didn't figure out the correct way of testing. I realized the previous PR is far from robustness. Thus I feel I need analyze the code firstly and then think to improve the code to workaround it.
During the analysis of the code, I have felt the original code is not somehow elegant.
In the original
if not isinstance(....):
A
else:
B
But I believe
if isinstance(...):
B
else:
A
is much simpler and easy to read.
This PR is just change to the above. No essential change.
I'm afraid the original authors' feel such change is needless. But I believe for further analysis by many contributors such revision would be works good.
Could you please think about acceptance?