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

Typos fix by misspell-fixer (Sourcery refactored) #17

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: create-pull-request/patch
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

sourcery-ai[bot]
Copy link

@sourcery-ai sourcery-ai bot commented May 27, 2022

Pull Request #1 refactored by Sourcery.

If you're happy with these changes, merge this Pull Request using the Squash and merge strategy.

NOTE: As code is pushed to the original Pull Request, Sourcery will
re-run and update (force-push) this Pull Request with new refactorings as
necessary. If Sourcery finds no refactorings at any point, this Pull Request
will be closed automatically.

See our documentation here.

Run Sourcery locally

Reduce the feedback loop during development by using the Sourcery editor plugin:

Review changes via command line

To manually merge these changes, make sure you're on the create-pull-request/patch branch, then run:

git fetch origin sourcery/create-pull-request/patch
git merge --ff-only FETCH_HEAD
git reset HEAD^

Help us improve this pull request!

@sourcery-ai sourcery-ai bot requested a review from fairdataihub-bot May 27, 2022 17:54
payload = start_osparc_job("python", input_file_paths)

return payload
return start_osparc_job("python", input_file_paths)
Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Function start_python_osparc_job refactored with the following changes:

Comment on lines -74 to +72
payload = start_osparc_job("matlab", input_file_paths)

return payload
return start_osparc_job("matlab", input_file_paths)
Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Function start_matlab_osparc_job refactored with the following changes:

print(f"Now downloading to disk path:")
print("Now downloading to disk path:")
results_file: File = outputs.results[output_result_to_use]
#print(f"file id: {results_file.id}")
download_path: str = files_api.download_file(file_id=results_file.id)

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Function check_job_status refactored with the following changes:

Comment on lines -428 to +424
dir_path_for_job_outputs = os.path.join(static_dir, "jobs-results", job_id)

return dir_path_for_job_outputs
return os.path.join(static_dir, "jobs-results", job_id)
Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Function get_static_dir_for_job refactored with the following changes:

@sourcery-ai
Copy link
Author

sourcery-ai bot commented May 27, 2022

Sourcery Code Quality Report

❌  Merging this PR will decrease code quality in the affected files by 0.53%.

Quality metrics Before After Change
Complexity 4.32 ⭐ 4.42 ⭐ 0.10 👎
Method Length 94.90 🙂 93.90 🙂 -1.00 👍
Working memory 8.10 🙂 8.18 🙂 0.08 👎
Quality 65.35% 🙂 64.82% 🙂 -0.53% 👎
Other metrics Before After Change
Lines 411 405 -6
Changed files Quality Before Quality After Quality Change
app/osparc/job_api.py 65.35% 🙂 64.82% 🙂 -0.53% 👎

Here are some functions in these files that still need a tune-up:

File Function Complexity Length Working Memory Quality Recommendation
app/osparc/job_api.py check_job_status 10 🙂 291 ⛔ 10 😞 43.81% 😞 Try splitting into smaller methods. Extract out complex expressions
app/osparc/job_api.py check_python_job_status 5 ⭐ 138 😞 9 🙂 61.33% 🙂 Try splitting into smaller methods
app/osparc/job_api.py start_osparc_job 3 ⭐ 135 😞 9 🙂 63.65% 🙂 Try splitting into smaller methods

Legend and Explanation

The emojis denote the absolute quality of the code:

  • ⭐ excellent
  • 🙂 good
  • 😞 poor
  • ⛔ very poor

The 👍 and 👎 indicate whether the quality has improved or gotten worse with this pull request.


Please see our documentation here for details on how these metrics are calculated.

We are actively working on this report - lots more documentation and extra metrics to come!

Help us improve this quality report!

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.

0 participants