serial extract_archive to prevent unnecessary extractions

[SiQube]

resolves #488 eventually

currently, tox does not work locally for whatever reason.

TODO:

• time vs old extraction
• coverage

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 80.00000% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 99.94%. Comparing base (82e87d5) to head (4f4f0ff).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/pymovements/utils/archives.py	80.00%	1 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##              main     #786      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage   100.00%   99.94%   -0.06%     
===========================================
  Files           74       74              
  Lines         3419     3425       +6     
  Branches       613      617       +4     
===========================================
+ Hits          3419     3423       +4     
- Misses           0        1       +1     
- Partials         0        1       +1     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[SiQube]

using this script

from pathlib import Path
import pymovements as pm

pm.utils.archives.extract_archive(Path('gazebasevr.zip'))

and predownloaded gazebase-vr -- I executed this command

time python t.py

for this branch:

Extracting gazebasevr.zip to .

real	6m53,025s
user	0m31,852s
sys	0m8,898s

for current main:

Extracting gazebasevr.zip to .

real	7m12,829s
user	0m33,634s
sys	0m9,835s

different workloads might affect the performance but it should be not too much slower. (in the example above the loop variant was even faster (?!?))

[dkrako]

great, thanks a lot! that was what I had in mind when creating #488.

We should introduce a new argument to let the user decide if continuing is desired or extracting should be done for all members. Something like continue: bool = True would be already sufficient.

[dkrako]

Great, thanks a lot for your work! There are some small issues left to work out, but we're getting there

[dkrako]

I'd say that skip is a bit confusing as a name. I suggested continue but that's a reserved keyword, so let's call it resume. this way it's already clear what the argument does without reading the docs.

[dkrako]

this won't really check for correct size. it's just checking if the archive member's size is greater than zero.

you need to check that the size of the member is the same as the size of the already existing file. Otherwise a partially extracted file (i.e. the existing file is smaller than the archive member) will be skipped.

[dkrako]

probably it makes sense to check skip or resume first, because if it's False you don't need to check all the other conditions and will extract either way.

[dkrako]

you should probably break this up into separate conditions for readability.

create a variable like destination_filepath = os.path.join(destination_path, member)

[dkrako]

you will need the same logic here as in _extract_tar()

[dkrako]

probably it would be nice to add a short note that nested archives are extracted regardless of the value of skip/ resume

[dkrako]

I'm not sure of I understand what you are testing here. the test would already pass without this PR, right?

As I don't think that it's worth much effort to test this thoroughly, I'd probably just check the calls to TarFile.extract() for using the expected arguments via unittest.mock (for the second extract_archive() call).