Skip to content
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

#127 get_or_create is refactored and also with new name #131

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

opsdep
Copy link
Contributor

@opsdep opsdep commented Sep 21, 2020

@akorosov
Since you mentioned the refactoring is needed in the end of the issue #127 (comment) in #127 , I have refactored it.

@opsdep opsdep requested a review from akorosov September 23, 2020 07:38
Copy link
Member

@akorosov akorosov left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Refactoring is poor:

  • The name update_or_ingest is ambiguous. What does this function do?
  • The names update_options_values_by_default_char_fields and update_options_values_by_default_foreign_keys are too long.
  • Behaviour of these functions depend on input parameter existing_ds. It should not be like that - function should not be ambiguous.
  • Only two functions are created. These two functions are large. There are no unit tests for them.
  • The remaining update_or_ingest is also too large.

Refactoring has to be redone from scratch and discussed before implementation.

@akorosov akorosov closed this Dec 16, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants