refactor: a common interface for the set of operations shared between Table and PartitionedTableProxy #6162
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
jmao-denver
added
DocumentationNeeded
python-server-side
ReleaseNotesNeeded
chipkent
reviewed
Oct 2, 2024
| @@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ | |||
| # if we allow sphinx to generate type hints for signatures (default), it would make the generated doc cluttered and hard to read | |||
| autodoc_typehints = 'none' | |||
| autoclass_content = 'both' | |||
|
|
|||
| autodoc_default_options = {'inherited-members': False} | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would have to see the rendered docs to have a view on this config.
py/server/deephaven/table.py
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Overall, I like where this is going. There are a few areas I have concerns on, but I don't have the data to assess or comment on:
- What do the rendered pydocs look like?
- I assume
TableOperationswill also be used inpydeephaven. That is not illustrated here. Are you going to duplicate the code there, use a git symlink, create a new python package, etc. - There are a few methods that are not supported in some cases (e.g. see https://deephaven.io/core/docs/reference/table-operations/partitioned-tables/proxy/#available-methods). What is the plan? Do they get an unsupported exception if they are used? Do we do something else? etc.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I really don't like how the docs were rewritten for the refactor. See below. This just sounds like two sets of docs were stacked on top of each other. It needs a rewording or something to make it ok. I'm sure we are not the first ones to deal with this, so I'm sure there are established strategies that are better.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
- The underlying implementations of the operations are quite different between the client API and the server API. So what they can share is an abstract interface not a generic concrete class as written here. The ABC is useful to a certain degree but because the client and the server are not on parity with supported ops, we will need to add a number of 'NotImplemented' exceptions in the implementation classes. I feel the work belongs to the epic of achieving parity between the client and the server.
- The approach I think makes sense is to keep the non-shared methods as they are. This works with auto-completion and wouldn't surprise the users with an 'NotImplemented' exception at runtime
jmao-denver
force-pushed
the
5233-table-ops-common-inf
branch
from
a1eda38
to
1acd511
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Fixes #5233
Verified that auto complete still works correctly, static type check also works
pydocs is changed, not ideal but not sure if we can do better.