Does photoquery.py have duplicate code (lines 578 vs 583)?

[mravery]

Describe the bug
Starting in line 578 and ending 587, it looks like these two if blocks are exactly the same (i.e. you can delete one of them without affecting the logic).

To Reproduce
View the code at the above lines.

Screenshots

Additional context
I was just browsing the code and came upon this. I am not well-versed in python, nor am I well-versed in the code-base. There could be a legitimate reason for this.

[RhetTbull]

You're right! Thanks for catching this. Not a bug technically but the code is unnecessary and doesn't actually do anything.

[RhetTbull]

@all-contributors please add @mravery for bug

[allcontributors]

@RhetTbull

I've put up a pull request to add @mravery! 🎉

[RhetTbull]

Looking at this code it should really be refactored to be simplified. If I change all the options to match the name of the PhotoInfo property, e.g. option.isreference and option.not_isreference then much of the code could be greatly simplified. (Today, some of the options have a different name than the PhotoInfo property, e.g. option.is_reference). We could then do something like this (after accounting for the text search properties like description:

def filter_photos(options: Options, photos: list[PhotoInfo]) -> list[PhotoInfo]:
    filtered_photos = photos
    for field in options.fields():
        if field.startswith("not_"):
            prop = field[4:]
            filtered_photos = [photo for photo in filtered_photos if not getattr(photo, prop, None)]
        else:
            filtered_photos = [photo for photo in filtered_photos if getattr(photo, field, None)]
    
    return filtered_photos

This would also make adding new options easier. There are a few special cases that would need to be handled.