#141 and #130 Removes the 'SPP' option from client_factory(...) until we have something implemented. #144
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
This would suggest to our users that the SPP client exists, where currently spp.py doesn't do anything.
We can create new test cases once an SPP client is implemented for WattTime#141.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Having 'SPP' as an available option for
client_factory(...)suggests to users that we have a client implemented for Southwest Power Pool when we actually don't. I would be pretty frustrated if I saw SPP listed, only to be met with a completely non-functional client.This commit removes that confusion until we're able to implement #141 properly. It also deletes
spp_test.pywhich had a bunch of useless content that was commented out entirely.