Do unicode migration for rbtools/api/

Review Request #6686 — Created Dec. 9, 2014 and submitted

Information

RBTools
master
5317e31...

Reviewers

This change updates the code in the rbtools/api/ directory to have a correct
separation of unicode vs bytes, and use unicode literals everywhere.

Ran unit tests.

Description From Last Updated

Col: 80 E501 line too long (80 > 79 characters)

reviewbotreviewbot

Col: 21 E128 continuation line under-indented for visual indent

reviewbotreviewbot

Col: 80 E501 line too long (80 > 79 characters)

reviewbotreviewbot

Col: 80 E501 line too long (84 > 79 characters)

reviewbotreviewbot

This looks kind of funky. Can we not use a byte string and feed in key.encode('utf-8'), like: content.write(b'Content-Disposition: formd-ata; name="%s"' …

chipx86chipx86

Blank line between these.

chipx86chipx86

Blank line.

chipx86chipx86

Blank line.

chipx86chipx86

We should probably update these (and any above) to use formatting strings instead of concatenation, since the latter is slower.

chipx86chipx86

Same question as above.

chipx86chipx86

""" on the next line.

chipx86chipx86

This should probably be using formatting strings to.

chipx86chipx86

Is this needed for regexes? I'd expect r.

chipx86chipx86

Same here. We should also move this out and compile it so we don't have eto do that each time …

chipx86chipx86

repr doesn't seem like the right thing here, at least conceptually. What are we using it for?

chipx86chipx86
reviewbot
  1. Tool: Pyflakes
    Processed Files:
        rbtools/api/client.py
        rbtools/api/resource.py
        rbtools/api/decorators.py
        rbtools/api/factory.py
        rbtools/api/decode.py
        rbtools/api/capabilities.py
        rbtools/api/tests.py
        rbtools/api/request.py
        rbtools/api/errors.py
        rbtools/api/utils.py
    
    
    
    Tool: PEP8 Style Checker
    Processed Files:
        rbtools/api/client.py
        rbtools/api/resource.py
        rbtools/api/decorators.py
        rbtools/api/factory.py
        rbtools/api/decode.py
        rbtools/api/capabilities.py
        rbtools/api/tests.py
        rbtools/api/request.py
        rbtools/api/errors.py
        rbtools/api/utils.py
    
    
  2. rbtools/api/request.py (Diff revision 1)
     
     
    Show all issues
    Col: 80
     E501 line too long (80 > 79 characters)
    
  3. rbtools/api/request.py (Diff revision 1)
     
     
    Show all issues
    Col: 21
     E128 continuation line under-indented for visual indent
    
  4. rbtools/api/request.py (Diff revision 1)
     
     
    Show all issues
    Col: 80
     E501 line too long (80 > 79 characters)
    
  5. rbtools/api/tests.py (Diff revision 1)
     
     
    Show all issues
    Col: 80
     E501 line too long (84 > 79 characters)
    
  6. 
      
david
reviewbot
  1. Tool: Pyflakes
    Processed Files:
        rbtools/api/client.py
        rbtools/api/resource.py
        rbtools/api/decorators.py
        rbtools/api/factory.py
        rbtools/api/decode.py
        rbtools/api/capabilities.py
        rbtools/api/tests.py
        rbtools/api/request.py
        rbtools/api/errors.py
        rbtools/api/utils.py
    
    
    
    Tool: PEP8 Style Checker
    Processed Files:
        rbtools/api/client.py
        rbtools/api/resource.py
        rbtools/api/decorators.py
        rbtools/api/factory.py
        rbtools/api/decode.py
        rbtools/api/capabilities.py
        rbtools/api/tests.py
        rbtools/api/request.py
        rbtools/api/errors.py
        rbtools/api/utils.py
    
    
  2. 
      
chipx86
  1. 
      
  2. rbtools/api/request.py (Diff revision 2)
     
     
     
     
    Show all issues

    This looks kind of funky. Can we not use a byte string and feed in key.encode('utf-8'), like:

    content.write(b'Content-Disposition: formd-ata; name="%s"'
                  % key.encode('utf-8'))
    
    1. The 'bytes' type in Python 3.x doesn't have a % operator, and won't until 3.5. I'll try wrapping this differently.

  3. rbtools/api/request.py (Diff revision 2)
     
     
     
    Show all issues

    Blank line between these.

  4. rbtools/api/request.py (Diff revision 2)
     
     
     
    Show all issues

    Blank line.

  5. rbtools/api/request.py (Diff revision 2)
     
     
     
    Show all issues

    Blank line.

  6. rbtools/api/request.py (Diff revision 2)
     
     
    Show all issues

    We should probably update these (and any above) to use formatting strings instead of concatenation, since the latter is slower.

    1. Between the decode, format, and re-encode, I think it's probably a wash in terms of speed, and this only happens once per API request.

  7. rbtools/api/request.py (Diff revision 2)
     
     
     
    Show all issues

    Same question as above.

  8. rbtools/api/request.py (Diff revision 2)
     
     
    Show all issues

    """ on the next line.

  9. rbtools/api/request.py (Diff revision 2)
     
     
    Show all issues

    This should probably be using formatting strings to.

  10. rbtools/api/tests.py (Diff revision 2)
     
     
    Show all issues

    Is this needed for regexes? I'd expect r.

    1. It's needed if you run the regex on bytes types. It's not using the r prefix because there are no characters.

  11. rbtools/api/tests.py (Diff revision 2)
     
     
    Show all issues

    Same here.

    We should also move this out and compile it so we don't have eto do that each time in this loop.

  12. 
      
david
reviewbot
  1. Tool: Pyflakes
    Processed Files:
        rbtools/api/client.py
        rbtools/api/resource.py
        rbtools/api/decorators.py
        rbtools/api/factory.py
        rbtools/api/decode.py
        rbtools/api/capabilities.py
        rbtools/api/tests.py
        rbtools/api/request.py
        rbtools/api/errors.py
        rbtools/api/utils.py
    
    
    
    Tool: PEP8 Style Checker
    Processed Files:
        rbtools/api/client.py
        rbtools/api/resource.py
        rbtools/api/decorators.py
        rbtools/api/factory.py
        rbtools/api/decode.py
        rbtools/api/capabilities.py
        rbtools/api/tests.py
        rbtools/api/request.py
        rbtools/api/errors.py
        rbtools/api/utils.py
    
    
  2. 
      
chipx86
  1. 
      
  2. rbtools/api/request.py (Diff revision 3)
     
     
    Show all issues

    repr doesn't seem like the right thing here, at least conceptually. What are we using it for?

  3. 
      
david
reviewbot
  1. Tool: Pyflakes
    Processed Files:
        rbtools/api/client.py
        rbtools/api/resource.py
        rbtools/api/decorators.py
        rbtools/api/factory.py
        rbtools/api/decode.py
        rbtools/api/capabilities.py
        rbtools/api/tests.py
        rbtools/api/request.py
        rbtools/api/errors.py
        rbtools/api/utils.py
    
    
    
    Tool: PEP8 Style Checker
    Processed Files:
        rbtools/api/client.py
        rbtools/api/resource.py
        rbtools/api/decorators.py
        rbtools/api/factory.py
        rbtools/api/decode.py
        rbtools/api/capabilities.py
        rbtools/api/tests.py
        rbtools/api/request.py
        rbtools/api/errors.py
        rbtools/api/utils.py
    
    
  2. 
      
chipx86
  1. Ship It!
  2. 
      
david
Review request changed

Status: Closed (submitted)

Change Summary:

Pushed to master (b2d562a)
Loading...