Skip to content

[#709] preserve options in chaining obj.metadata(opt1=val1)(opt2=val2) #716

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

[#709] preserve options in chaining obj.metadata(opt1=val1)(opt2=val2) #716

wants to merge 4 commits into from

Conversation

@d-w-moore
Copy link
Collaborator

@d-w-moore d-w-moore commented Apr 29, 2025

In other words, setting opt2 = val2 does not reset opt1 back to its default value.

korydraughn
korydraughn reviewed Apr 29, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@korydraughn korydraughn left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good overall.

@d-w-moore d-w-moore changed the title [_709] preserve options in chaining obj.metadata(opt1=val1)(opt2=val2) [#709] preserve options in chaining obj.metadata(opt1=val1)(opt2=val2) May 6, 2025
@d-w-moore d-w-moore mentioned this pull request Oct 16, 2025
Open
@d-w-moore d-w-moore marked this pull request as draft November 27, 2025 04:44
@d-w-moore
[_709] orthogonal options when chaining obj.metadata(opt1=val1)(opt2=…
2cc03aa 
…val2)

In other words, setting opt2 = val2 does not reset opt1 back to its default value.

[_709] correct and streamline. _opts and __kw should be separate.

[_709] reasonable copy of _opts
@d-w-moore
[_768] reload option
c51532f 
[_768] add test

[_768] reasonable handling of _meta
@d-w-moore
[_707] support for subclassing iRODSMeta
ba3c682 
Example: iRODSBinOrStringMeta allows storing arbitrary octet strings in metadata.

[_707] test of iRODSMeta subclass which stores bytestring value and/or unit

This required some more corrections and tweaks of the iRODSMeta_type handling.

[_707] iRODSMeta name could contain Unicode, ergo should not be included in translations

[_707] do remove properly
@d-w-moore d-w-moore force-pushed the 709.m branch 2 times, most recently from ef597fa to 087ded2 Compare November 29, 2025 03:24
@d-w-moore d-w-moore self-assigned this Nov 29, 2025
@d-w-moore
Copy link
Collaborator Author

d-w-moore commented Nov 29, 2025

Evidently it is still possible to fail here:

https://github.com/d-w-moore/python-irodsclient/blob/388ad3d858ebcc7be981d1c065a4dd57ffc066cf/irods/test/data_obj_test.py#L3317

The modify time turned out on this occasion to be one second later than the access time on a just-created replica open for write:


======================================================================
FAIL [0.216s]: test_access_time__issue_700 (data_obj_test.TestDataObjOps.test_access_time__issue_700)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/prc.rw/irods/test/data_obj_test.py", line 3317, in test_access_time__issue_700
    self.assertEqual(data.access_time, data.modify_time)
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
AssertionError: datetime.datetime(2025, 11, 29, 4, 12, 23, tzinfo=datetime.timezone.utc) != datetime.datetime(2025, 11, 29, 4, 12, 24, tzinfo=datetime.timezone.utc)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ran 302 tests in 319.841s

FAILED (failures=1, skipped=16)

@korydraughn any ideas why this might occasionally happen?

@d-w-moore d-w-moore marked this pull request as ready for review November 29, 2025 04:31
@d-w-moore
Copy link
Collaborator Author

d-w-moore commented Nov 29, 2025

Squashed , ready for review.

trel
trel reviewed Nov 30, 2025
View reviewed changes
irods/test/meta_test.py
all_relevant_avus = meta_coll.get_all(avu_name)
self.assertIn(new_avu, all_relevant_avus)

# these could be in a separate test. TODO - make issue regarding hash and sets of iRODSMeta
Copy link
Member

@trel trel Nov 30, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

found a TODO

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@trel trel trel left review comments

@korydraughn korydraughn korydraughn left review comments

@alanking alanking alanking left review comments

Assignees

@d-w-moore d-w-moore

Labels

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@d-w-moore @trel @korydraughn @alanking