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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
Refactor to create a AfidSet class #14
Refactor to create a AfidSet class #14
Changes from 8 commits
6defa80
ddaea1b
8c7dfee
485314e
af9a15a
f8c2299
df85426
bef365d
29cdcef
7cb62be
8c51097
488abd5
6001c00
c3fa441
e5e83cd
6fa2177
edd92be
e13eebd
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think my preferred approach would be to define an
Afid
class with a label and x, y, z coords, then make this alist[Afid]
, and add a validator that it contains 32Afid
s with labels in order.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, we can certainly do that - it'd be similar to how we had it implemented in the validator. The validation logic is implemented, just not as a separate method (under
load
) currently. If we do switch to doing it that way, than I would say lets just get rid of the use of dataframes all together - I don't see foresee any use case for them and would save us an additional dependency.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sounds good on all counts, with the note that I think it makes sense to implement the validation logic as an attrs validator to check the validation regardless of where the AFIDs are coming from
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That works for me, with the validation logic currently in place, lets move the attrs validator as a thing to do during the sprint. Should be easy enough to take what is currently there.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Cool, this has been done now with the latest commit sans attrs validator.