doc index: fix attribute name in example #93
Conversation
| @@ -140,7 +140,7 @@ chance to grab a reference to his original function: | |||
| :linenos: | |||
|
|
|||
| from myapp import logged_in | |||
| result = logged_in.original_func(None) | |||
| result = logged_in.original_function(None) | |||
| self.assertEqual(result['result'], 'Logged in') | |||
|
|
|||
| That works. But it's just a little weird. Since the ``jsonify`` | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I also want to add a note about functools.wraps that adds func.__wrapped__, which is better than original_func as an official convention, but does not remove the point and usefulness of venusian
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have some dim memory of intentionally not using functools.wrap because it lost information of some kind, but I can't remember what it was. It may not be applicable these days, but I doubt we want to change things around to be "more correct" at the expense of possibly breaking things.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Also, I think in this particular case, the use of manually attaching original_function instead of functools.wraps was only so all the code was in the same place for didactic purposes so when someone reads the docs they don't need to know how functools.wraps works under the hood. Venusian apparently still doesn't use functools.wraps, and I still can't remember why we don't, but we shouldn't bother in any case.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I only wanted to mention it, not change the code
| @@ -140,7 +140,7 @@ chance to grab a reference to his original function: | |||
| :linenos: | |||
|
|
|||
| from myapp import logged_in | |||
| result = logged_in.original_func(None) | |||
| result = logged_in.original_function(None) | |||
| self.assertEqual(result['result'], 'Logged in') | |||
|
|
|||
| That works. But it's just a little weird. Since the ``jsonify`` | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have some dim memory of intentionally not using functools.wrap because it lost information of some kind, but I can't remember what it was. It may not be applicable these days, but I doubt we want to change things around to be "more correct" at the expense of possibly breaking things.
|
This was handled in #94. |
|
This was not handled in that CI PR |
No description provided.