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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

allow repeated extra arguments #1673

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Oct 16, 2024
Merged

allow repeated extra arguments #1673

Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
7d28517
allow repeated extra arguments
karasikov Sep 16, 2024
372dd28
Merge branch 'master' into patch-1
martindurant Oct 10, 2024
74e023d
lint
martindurant Oct 10, 2024
32b7a97
test
martindurant Oct 16, 2024
04c9229
move line
martindurant Oct 16, 2024
4071ba2
try again
martindurant Oct 16, 2024
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion fsspec/core.py
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -346,7 +346,7 @@ def _un_chain(path, kwargs):
kws = kwargs.pop(protocol, {})
if bit is bits[0]:
kws.update(kwargs)
kw = dict(**extra_kwargs, **kws)
kw = dict(**{k: v for k, v in extra_kwargs.items() if k not in kws or v != kws[k]}, **kws)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Given the update on the line above, this could be repeated updates, and that way we can be a little more explicit about the order of precedence. In your model, user-supplied arguments should always win, overriding inferred ones?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Exactly, to completely avoid thinking about the priorities, here we simply deduplicate the same key-value pairs (so the priority is irrelevant). If the same key has two different values, they're passed as before, so that will raise the same error, e.g., TypeError: dict() got multiple values for keyword argument 'account_name'

extra_kwargs = {'x': 5, 'y': 4}, kws = {'z': 4} becomes {'x': 5, 'y': 4, 'z': 4}
extra_kwargs = {'x': 5, 'y': 4}, kws = {'x': 5} becomes {'x': 5, 'y': 4}
extra_kwargs = {'x': 5, 'y': 4}, kws = {'x': 4} becomes dict(**{'x': 5, 'y': 4}, **{'x': 4}) and raises TypeError

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

so the priority is irrelevant

Checking the values isn't always straight forward, they might not be simple ints and str. We could catch it and pass a useful message to the user?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Can we please include the two passing examples in some sort of test?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Apologies for the delay.
Yes, I can add tests.

bit = cls._strip_protocol(bit)
if (
protocol in {"blockcache", "filecache", "simplecache"}
Expand Down
Loading