#241 new package model validation by balusarakesh · Pull Request #249 · aboutcode-org/scancode-toolkit

balusarakesh · 2016-04-11T22:15:06Z

Enforced the correctness of package objects.

pombredanne · 2016-04-20T14:51:29Z

    notice = StringType(default=None)
    url = StringType(default=None)

-    def as_dict(self):


What is this replaced by? the equivalent schematics function?
If this is the case, as_dict is rather clear as a name, I would not want to have the schematics specific to percolat in the codebase everywhere. Instead we should have an as_dict function that wraps schematics calls.

there is an inbuilt function to_primitive which can serialize an object...so, I removed as_dict

ok, so do not remove as_dict. Make it available on the top level Package class and just have it call to_primitive : the point is that we do not want the external access to Packages to be tied to schematics.

Related we should not depend on the default constructor for schematics models to pass a dict vs named arguments: we should instead abstract that and accept **kwargs and pass the kwargs to schematics

@pombredanne in order to override the default constructor in schematics we need to edit the Model class in schematics.models.py. But everytime we configure scancode we get a fresh install of schematics and we lose the changes. how can we solve this problem?

maybe we can edit the schematics wheel file...is that a good idea?

maybe we can edit the schematics wheel file...is that a good idea?

Not really a good idea.

in order to override the default constructor in schematics we need to edit the Model class in schematics.models.py. But everytime we configure scancode we get a fresh install of schematics and we lose the changes. how can we solve this problem?

do not ever change schematics locally. We can subclass and compose, not override....

pombredanne · 2016-04-20T18:07:48Z


-        >>> q=Package(version='2')
-        >>> p=Package(version='1')
+        >>> q=Package(dict(versioning=Version(dict(version='2'))))


This is the part we would not want: a direct depdency on the way schematics demands a dict as args.
We want instead to do:
Package(versioning=Version(version='2'))
or Package(versioning=Version('2'))

* use actual types for checksums (SHA1, ...), URLs and URIs * New Version type and subclasses as needed * ensure that the field order is always defined to serialize fields properly in ordered dictionaries. * moved fields choices at the module level vs. class level * improved models for dependencies, created related package model * removed id and added identifier

pombredanne · 2016-06-24T14:34:51Z

I am merging this in develop now. Thanks @rakeshbalusa !
In hindsight the use of schematics may not be my best choice, but we can fix that later

pombredanne reviewed Apr 20, 2016
View reviewed changes

pombredanne changed the title ~~241 new package model~~ #241 new package model validation Apr 20, 2016

pombredanne reviewed Apr 20, 2016
View reviewed changes

pombredanne force-pushed the 241-new-package-model branch 2 times, most recently from 0afce24 to bbed9c0 Compare May 18, 2016 09:25

rakesh balusa and others added 8 commits May 18, 2016 13:56

#241 Add schematics library for Package model validation.

d50517d

#241 Edited Package class to enforce the correctness of package objects

0ec79b9

#241 minor formatting and removed the defaults

d4d39bd

#241 Add version to every model subclass.

f31b3c5

#241 Added recognize_package function for all the package models

68d2d7a

#241 Added test cases to recognize file types in package models

abbb90e

#241 Improved test cases and chosen smaller test files

9070a7f

#241 Moving the recognize package function to recognize.py

f3a27be

rakesh balusa and others added 26 commits May 18, 2016 13:56

#241 using URLType instead of StringType for URLs

000f827

#241 updated copyright

69a10d7

#241 removing as_dict function in package models

0c277d9

#241 adding as_dict to Package class

2ed128e

#241 Add test for complete serialized Package objects

9c9cf40

#241 Added default values for Package class variables

1c52ff8

#241 Fixed packaging attribute in all subclasses

7ade8e4

#241 location attribute is made an internal field

cec30d5

#241 inherited Model class to customize Package class initialization

f1b881e

#241 Return an OrderedDict from as_dict

e632360

#241 Fixed failing tests in comments

fb461b5

#241 Rename classes EnhancedModel,Version to BaseModel,Versioning

b840c0d

#241 Eliminated URLType and validated pacakge object data in test cases

7f5f051

#241 removed unnecessary variables and added cvs to vcs_tool

73452c6

#241 typo fixed and minor formatting

1db5a7a

#241 fixed overridden function __init__

f3c393c

#241 fixed as_dict() function to return a proper OrderedDict

b739d7e

#241 deleted redundant file

aa05486

#241 implementing as_dict() method in the main class(BaseModel)

4200ed4

#241 Removing left-over print statement from test function

47799d3

#241 Updated Maven Package creation and related tests expectations

42d9112

#241 new NEVRA parser for RPMs

d8b00a7

#241 Improved RPM model with proper version validation

ab44604

#241 Improved Nuget model with correct owners and authors

a976008

#241 Improved NPM model with correct owners and authors

ddf2aa3

pombredanne force-pushed the 241-new-package-model branch from bbed9c0 to ddf2aa3 Compare May 20, 2016 15:27

pombredanne merged commit 91b8f0f into develop Jun 24, 2016

pombredanne deleted the 241-new-package-model branch June 24, 2016 14:35

Navigation Menu

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

#241 new package model validation - #249

#241 new package model validation#249
pombredanne merged 41 commits into
developfrom
241-new-package-model

balusarakesh commented Apr 11, 2016

Uh oh!

pombredanne Apr 20, 2016

Uh oh!

balusarakesh Apr 20, 2016

Uh oh!

pombredanne Apr 20, 2016

Uh oh!

pombredanne Apr 20, 2016

Uh oh!

balusarakesh Apr 20, 2016 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

balusarakesh Apr 20, 2016

Uh oh!

pombredanne Apr 20, 2016 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

pombredanne Apr 20, 2016

Uh oh!

pombredanne Apr 20, 2016

Uh oh!

pombredanne commented Jun 24, 2016

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Conversation

balusarakesh commented Apr 11, 2016

Uh oh!

pombredanne Apr 20, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

balusarakesh Apr 20, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

pombredanne Apr 20, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

pombredanne Apr 20, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

balusarakesh Apr 20, 2016 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

balusarakesh Apr 20, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

pombredanne Apr 20, 2016 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

pombredanne Apr 20, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

pombredanne Apr 20, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

pombredanne commented Jun 24, 2016

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

balusarakesh Apr 20, 2016 •

edited

Loading

pombredanne Apr 20, 2016 •

edited

Loading