Sweep.py: add getters and setters for private fields #659
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Beware that this commit removes a lock from SweepSettings.update_tex_power, and adds one to DeviceSettings.updatecustomPoint. Both changse may be incorrect, depending on the role of the lock (issue #657). Follows: 6eb24f2 d09b55e dbea311 Since d09b55e, the Properties.name class attribute is overriden by each assignment to the properties.name instance attribute. This is most probably unwanted. This commit * removes @DataClass, which is confusing as some attributes are managed because of the lock. Because of this, it has to restore __repr__ and __eq__. * provides getters and setters for private attributes, and protects each update by a thread lock * adds a regression test for the bug fixed by d09b55e (immutable properties).
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The two first commits are trivial (and could be submitted separately if needed).
The third one is a proof of concept for one of the ideas in issue #657.
The header describes why it can probably not be applied yet.
No breaking change (hopefully).