-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 395
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
Generate sync methods from async ones #1329
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
which is derivated from AsyncLargeFileManager
Thank you for making this pull request. Did you know? You can try it on Binder: Also, the version of Jupytext developed in this PR can be installed with
(this requires |
c48fdf3
to
0c0f754
Compare
0c0f754
to
093bfb9
Compare
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
❌ Your project check has failed because the head coverage (96.40%) is below the target coverage (97.00%). You can increase the head coverage or adjust the target coverage. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1329 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 97.04% 96.45% -0.60%
==========================================
Files 29 32 +3
Lines 4499 4876 +377
==========================================
+ Hits 4366 4703 +337
- Misses 133 173 +40
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
Hi @Darshan808 , I see more tests passing on this PR. In this version, the synchronous contents manager is really synchronous, which means that we don't need to adjust the remaining tests. Can you have a look and let me know what you think? Now that we see at least one way to get the tests passing I will have a look at the next step i.e. test this in real conditions over the coming days. |
I initially avoided this approach because of code duplication and the hassle of maintaining the same code in two places. But the idea of a test duplicating the file is awesome—it solves that issue. Both approaches have trade-offs, but this seems fine. I think we can proceed! |
Looking at the CI failure, I think adding |
Thanks! I'll do another pass in the coming days. One more question - do you think we will ever want to create an async contents manager from a sync one? If not maybe we can remove the |
After separating sync and async, this scenario should no longer occur. I believe we can safely remove |
This PR is built on top of #1328.
In addition to that PR, it provides a synchronous version of
build_sync_jupytext_contents_manager_class
that is extracted programmatically from the asynchronous version.