Skip to content

depr: deprecate GazeDataFrame in favor of Gaze #1119

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

Draft
wants to merge 28 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

dkrako
Copy link
Contributor

@dkrako dkrako commented Apr 24, 2025

⚠️ Deprecation

DeprecationWarning: GazeDataFrame has been renamed to Gaze in v0.22.0 and will be removed in v0.27.0.

Description

Renames GazeDataFrame to the shorter Gaze. Implements GazeDataFrame as deprecated alias.

The following warnings are printed on instantiation and subclassing:

DeprecationWarning: GazeDataFrame has been renamed to Gaze in v0.22.0 and will be removed in v0.27.0.

Implemented changes

  • rename GazeDataFrame to Gaze
  • implement helper metaclass for deprecating old aliases
  • implement GazeDataFrame as deprecated class alias

How Has This Been Tested?

  • Tested instantiation warnings
  • Tested subclassing warnings

Context

related issues:

Checklist:

  • My code follows the style guidelines of this project
  • I have performed a self-review of my own code
  • I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
  • I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
  • My changes generate no new warnings
  • I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
  • New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
  • Any dependent changes have been merged and published in downstream modules
  • I have checked my code and corrected any misspellings

Copy link

codecov bot commented Apr 24, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 100.00%. Comparing base (a5a4a03) to head (d499b1c).

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##              main     #1119   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage   100.00%   100.00%           
=========================================
  Files           93        95    +2     
  Lines         4042      4095   +53     
  Branches       715       719    +4     
=========================================
+ Hits          4042      4095   +53     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@dkrako dkrako marked this pull request as ready for review April 28, 2025 10:44
@dkrako dkrako requested a review from SiQube as a code owner April 28, 2025 10:44
@dkrako dkrako requested a review from prassepaul as a code owner April 28, 2025 10:44
@dkrako dkrako enabled auto-merge (squash) April 28, 2025 11:29
@SiQube
Copy link
Member

SiQube commented May 19, 2025

please fix merge conflicts -- will check asap afterwards

@dkrako dkrako marked this pull request as draft May 27, 2025 05:27
auto-merge was automatically disabled May 27, 2025 05:27

Pull request was converted to draft

Copy link

@github-actions github-actions bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

⚠️ Performance Alert ⚠️

Possible performance regression was detected for benchmark 'pytest-benchmark'.
Benchmark result of this commit is worse than the previous benchmark result exceeding threshold 1.50.

Benchmark suite Current: d499b1c Previous: a5a4a03 Ratio
tests/benchmark/import_test.py::test_import_pymovements_subprocess 0.027569107509362815 iter/sec (stddev: 4.020480411210118) 0.5416393706851328 iter/sec (stddev: 0.6272416332904706) 19.65

This comment was automatically generated by workflow using github-action-benchmark.

CC: @dkrako @SiQube

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants