Closed
Conversation
Codecov ReportAttention:
❗ Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #92 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 77.08% 76.83% -0.25%
==========================================
Files 27 27
Lines 1933 1943 +10
==========================================
+ Hits 1490 1493 +3
- Misses 443 450 +7
☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
Contributor
|
@melwil Agree on the changes you've introduced, that will make it work well for type checkers. However, it will be a breaching change, as in case somebody's already used the client with Could you resolve the conflict, please? |
This was referenced Jan 24, 2025
Contributor
|
Merged in #118 |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR aims to improve the constructor for new clients.
I've removed all code related to AsyncClient from client.py, and allowed you to directly make AsyncClient. This does mean it's a breaking change, but one that is easily caught by tests or type checkers.
There are a couple of reasons for this:
new_client()making both types means that a typed project doesn't know if it has a Client or AsyncClient, and it has to be validated before use.Finally, I will concede that it's not the greatest idea to repeat the code for getting the env vars and validating them in both constructors, it could be moved to some sort of utility function. I can do that if desireable, but in this case it's not a great chance for reusability.