Skip to content
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.

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

fix: refactor all 'or []' and 'or {}' logic to make code more clear #10883

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Nov 21, 2024

Conversation

yihong0618
Copy link
Contributor

Summary

refactor most of the or [] and or {} logic
main is as it

  • since we use dict.get(xxx) can use default value
  • some value is already [] by default there is no need to or it

Tip

Close issue syntax: Fixes #<issue number> or Resolves #<issue number>, see documentation for more details.

Screenshots

Before: After:
... ...

Checklist

Important

Please review the checklist below before submitting your pull request.

  • This change requires a documentation update, included: Dify Document
  • I understand that this PR may be closed in case there was no previous discussion or issues. (This doesn't apply to typos!)
  • I've added a test for each change that was introduced, and I tried as much as possible to make a single atomic change.
  • I've updated the documentation accordingly.
  • I ran dev/reformat(backend) and cd web && npx lint-staged(frontend) to appease the lint gods

@dosubot dosubot bot added size:M This PR changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. 💪 enhancement New feature or request labels Nov 20, 2024
@laipz8200
Copy link
Collaborator

This behavior is unexpected because sometimes the dictionary contains entries with {'key': None}.

@laipz8200
Copy link
Collaborator

However, some parts of the changes are worth keeping, and we can retain those. Could you avoid changing the dict.get('key') pattern while keeping the other modifications?

@yihong0618
Copy link
Contributor Author

This behavior is unexpected because sometimes the dictionary contains entries with {'key': None}.

yes I did not change that logic, please check~

@yihong0618
Copy link
Contributor Author

copy that, will change the dict key, None part I am wrong

Signed-off-by: yihong0618 <zouzou0208@gmail.com>
@yihong0618
Copy link
Contributor Author

However, some parts of the changes are worth keeping, and we can retain those. Could you avoid changing the dict.get('key') pattern while keeping the other modifications?

fixed thanks

Copy link
Collaborator

@laipz8200 laipz8200 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Two points might need changed, please check my comments. 😊

api/services/app_service.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Signed-off-by: yihong0618 <zouzou0208@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: yihong0618 <zouzou0208@gmail.com>
Copy link
Collaborator

@laipz8200 laipz8200 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thank you for your detailed work~

@dosubot dosubot bot added the lgtm This PR has been approved by a maintainer label Nov 20, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

@bowenliang123 bowenliang123 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM. Nice shots~

@crazywoola crazywoola merged commit 0067b16 into langgenius:main Nov 21, 2024
6 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
💪 enhancement New feature or request lgtm This PR has been approved by a maintainer size:M This PR changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants