On 03/15/2016 01:25 PM, Zac Medico wrote: > On 03/15/2016 01:17 PM, Brian Dolbec wrote: >> On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 12:42:51 -0700 >> Zac Medico <zmed...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> >>> On 03/15/2016 12:38 PM, Zac Medico wrote: >>>> On 03/15/2016 12:04 PM, Brian Dolbec wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 18:04:56 -0700 >>>>> Zac Medico <zmed...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> The only consumer for that allvalid variable is the metadata >>>>>>> UnusedCheck class. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So the allvalid variable is True until found False >>>>>>> by whichever checks along the way find it to be False. Like a >>>>>>> fuse, it's good until it's blown, then it can never be good >>>>>>> again. I don't think this particular variable justifies a >>>>>>> special class that more fully mimics a fuse. Impossible to >>>>>>> reset it like a breaker. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yeah, let's do it. It's a great opportunity to add clarity to the >>>>>> code, and prevent future goofs. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Done, it is now dynamic_data['validity_fuse'] which is a Fuse >>>>> instance. >>>> >>>> Nice, thank you! >>>> >>>> We can also use Fuse for the 'can_force' boolean, right? >>>> >>> >>> For 'changed' as well. >> >> can_force, is yes >> >> changed is a no. It is the VCS module Changes class instance. I see >> now that I described it wrong in the docstrings. Maybe I should rename >> it for better clarity to changes_inst or vcs_changes... ideas? > > Maybe 'changes'? > > Also, now that we are using Fuse, can't we stop returning things from > these functions entirely, so that dynamic_data is only updated by > side-effects? >
I think 'continue' is the only one left. We could just return a single boolean, or use an exception to do what 'continue' does. -- Thanks, Zac
