Remove dead modules #212
Remove dead modules #212
Conversation
Codecov ReportPatch coverage:
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #212 +/- ##
===========================================
+ Coverage 80.99% 95.60% +14.61%
===========================================
Files 19 17 -2
Lines 2252 1913 -339
===========================================
+ Hits 1824 1829 +5
+ Misses 428 84 -344
☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
WilliamJamieson
force-pushed
the
refactor/remove_dead
branch
from
134c605
to
5fb5b2a
Compare
| @classmethod | ||
| def is_association(cls, asn_data): | ||
| """ | ||
| Test if an object is an association by checking for required fields | ||
| """ | ||
| if isinstance(asn_data, dict): | ||
| if "asn_id" in asn_data and "asn_pool" in asn_data: | ||
| return True | ||
| return False |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@mairanteodoro requested that we keep this method in roman_datamodels but we directly associate it with the AssociationsModel as that is what it is needed for.
This change simply binds the is_association method with the AssociationsModel to make the relationship clear. romancal will simply call AssociationsModel.is_association in a utility is_association function.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@WilliamJamieson I'm OK with moving it out of roman_datamodels.
| @pytest.mark.parametrize( | ||
| "expected, asn_data", | ||
| [ | ||
| (True, {"asn_id": "foo", "asn_pool": "bar"}), | ||
| (False, {"asn_id": "foo"}), | ||
| (False, {"asn_pool": "bar"}), | ||
| (False, {"foo": "bar"}), | ||
| (False, "foo"), | ||
| ], | ||
| ) | ||
| def test_is_association(expected, asn_data): | ||
| """ | ||
| Test the is_association function. | ||
| """ | ||
|
|
||
| assert datamodels.AssociationsModel.is_association(asn_data) is expected |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actually, test the is_association (it was never tested before).
WilliamJamieson
force-pushed
the
refactor/remove_dead
branch
from
3406094
to
10e8106
Compare
WilliamJamieson
force-pushed
the
refactor/remove_dead
branch
from
10e8106
to
f154171
Compare
|
Close/reopen due to messing up branch pushes |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are we adding mktest and utils to the romancal docs?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No, they were linked to in the roman_datamodels docs accidentally.
This PR removes some dead modules:
roman_datamodels.utilsroman_datamodels.mktestThese modules appear to be untested, unused, duplicate other functionality, and essentially abandoned.
Checklist
CHANGES.rstunder the corresponding subsectionis_assocationtoromancalromancal#719 changes)