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

Duplicated TraversableResourcesLoader and wrap_spec #227

Closed
FFY00 opened this issue May 21, 2021 · 2 comments
Closed

Duplicated TraversableResourcesLoader and wrap_spec #227

FFY00 opened this issue May 21, 2021 · 2 comments
Assignees

Comments

@FFY00
Copy link
Member

FFY00 commented May 21, 2021

8207434 seems to have mistakenly added some TraversableResourcesLoader and wrap_spec implementations to the _adapters module. Objects with the same name and better implementation already exist in _compat, and it seems to me these ones are leftover from a previous code redesign. Can you confirm @jaraco?

Waiting on #221 getting resolved to submit a PR as it will conflict.

@jaraco
Copy link
Member

jaraco commented May 23, 2021

I encountered this confusion as well while getting back up-to-speed on this project.

The key difference between the implementation in _adapters and _compat is that _adapters.* is used in CPython 3.10, where the FileReader and ZipReader and NamespaceReaders exist natively for their respective loaders. _compat is used in the backport only and exists to support older Pythons where those loaders don't provide the native implementations presenting TraversableResources.

I can update the docstrings in those modules to reflect this need.

@jaraco jaraco self-assigned this May 23, 2021
@FFY00
Copy link
Member Author

FFY00 commented May 23, 2021

That clarifies it, thanks!

@FFY00 FFY00 closed this as completed May 23, 2021
jaraco added a commit that referenced this issue May 23, 2021
…aversableResourcesLoader and _compat.wrap_spec (seemingly duplicated). Fixes #227.
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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants