Rietveld Code Review Tool
Help | Bug tracker | Discussion group | Source code | Sign in
(197)

Issue 29849585: !WIP! Issue 6835 - Add R support to python-abp

Can't Edit
Can't Publish+Mail
Start Review
Created:
6 days, 20 hours ago by Tudor Avram
Modified:
4 days, 22 hours ago
Reviewers:
Vasily Kuznetsov
CC:
kirill
Visibility:
Public.

Description

!WIP! Issue 6835 - Add R support to python-abp

Patch Set 1 #

Total comments: 4

Patch Set 2 : Refactored tests #

Unified diffs Side-by-side diffs Delta from patch set Stats (+241 lines, -0 lines) Patch
A abp/filters/rpy.py View 1 1 chunk +93 lines, -0 lines 0 comments Download
A tests/test_rpy.py View 1 1 chunk +148 lines, -0 lines 0 comments Download

Messages

Total messages: 3
Tudor Avram
Hi all, Here is the first (basic) implementation of the rPython layer from python-abp. Currently, ...
6 days, 20 hours ago (2018-08-07 15:12:08 UTC) #1
Vasily Kuznetsov
Hi Tudor, It looks good in general. Perhaps we can add another function for converting ...
5 days, 20 hours ago (2018-08-08 14:32:50 UTC) #2
Tudor Avram
4 days, 22 hours ago (2018-08-09 12:55:02 UTC) #3
Hi Vasily,

I addressed your comments and refactores test_rpy.py. 

Thanks, 
Tudor.

https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29849585/diff/29849586/abp/filters/rpy.py
File abp/filters/rpy.py (right):

https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29849585/diff/29849586/abp/filters/rpy.py#...
abp/filters/rpy.py:34: filter: namedtuple
On 2018/08/08 14:32:50, Vasily Kuznetsov wrote:
> Nit: parameter name mismatch :)

Done.

https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29849585/diff/29849586/tests/test_rpy.py
File tests/test_rpy.py (right):

https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29849585/diff/29849586/tests/test_rpy.py#n...
tests/test_rpy.py:61: def check_correct_datatypes(data, expected_types):
On 2018/08/08 14:32:50, Vasily Kuznetsov wrote:
> What do you think about checking generated dicts against expected dicts with a
> slightly more detailed checker than == ? We would just need to also make sure
> that the types of all values are the same (otherwise unicode strings might
> sometimes look == to byte strings). It seems that this would achieve the same
> level of verification but it would have less code and would be easier to
follow
> and change in the future.

Done.
Sign in to reply to this message.

Powered by Google App Engine
RSS Feeds Recent Issues | This issue
This is Rietveld 87257f5