-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 208
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
Fix typo in checking for ignore_nonexisting in LocalTransport #6471
Conversation
Thanks for the contribution @MichaelGoulding! I can see how the fact that the method looks for I'll work on a deprecation path instead, and also add some more tests to make sure we don't break existing behaviour. |
@mbercx The issue is that I when I switched an existing workflow that was using SshTransport to instead use LocalTransport, the workflow no longer worked. Perhaps LocalTransport could support both names for now? |
@mbercx I have added the backwards compatibility fix. I want to release a patch version soonish. Could you have a quick look? Thanks! |
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #6471 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 77.51% 77.82% +0.32%
==========================================
Files 560 564 +4
Lines 41444 41922 +478
==========================================
+ Hits 32120 32621 +501
+ Misses 9324 9301 -23 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Just a suggestion:
I noticed we also have ignore_existing
somewhere.
Since you are raising an deprecation warning to version 3
.
How about we deprecate all the three (ignore_existing
, ignore_noexisting
, ignore_nonexisting
) in favor of exist_ok
?
Also they have a reversed logic, every time I have to translate in my mind -1 * -1 = +1
😄
I think it is a good suggestion, but that is used in many places of the interface and would be a considerable change. I think that should be left to a separate PR if we decide to implement that name change. Feel free to open an issue to track it |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good to me, thanks @sphuber! Sorry for the slow review
The `LocalTransport.put` method contained a typo and so would check for the `ignore_noexisting` argument instead of `ignore_nonexisting`. The typo is corrected but for backwards compatibility the method continues to check for the misspelled version emitting a deprecation warning.
The `LocalTransport.put` method contained a typo and so would check for the `ignore_noexisting` argument instead of `ignore_nonexisting`. The typo is corrected but for backwards compatibility the method continues to check for the misspelled version emitting a deprecation warning. Cherry-pick: de83e2c
…am#6471) The `LocalTransport.put` method contained a typo and so would check for the `ignore_noexisting` argument instead of `ignore_nonexisting`. The typo is corrected but for backwards compatibility the method continues to check for the misspelled version emitting a deprecation warning.
No description provided.