-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 678
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
Dynamic Humanize and describe_multi Bug Fix #997
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #997 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage 100.00% 100.00%
=========================================
Files 10 10
Lines 2223 2164 -59
Branches 350 345 -5
=========================================
- Hits 2223 2164 -59
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
@@ -1122,6 +1122,7 @@ def humanize( | |||
locale: str = DEFAULT_LOCALE, | |||
only_distance: bool = False, | |||
granularity: Union[_GRANULARITY, List[_GRANULARITY]] = "auto", | |||
dynamic: bool = False, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is this False by default to avoid a breaking change? That's understandable, but also disappointing since to me, the dynamic behaviour seems much more useful than outputting a bunch of zeros for units.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@MarkKoz, yes we left as False by default in order to avoid changing the behaviour of humanize drastically. I agree that it would make more sense to leave it as True by default however. @jadchaar @krisfremen @systemcatch what are your thoughts?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
At the least, I hope changing this can be considered for the next major release (assuming you're following SemVer).
Unrelated: dynamic
isn't a good name — it's vague and non-self-descriptive. omit_zeros
or something similar would be clearer.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think we should leave it as False for the time being, do a warning for changing behavior and change it to default True after a few versions.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That sounds reasonable. Any thoughts on my name suggestion?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Errr throwing out a few ideas for the name, only_natural
, minimal
, drop_zeros
. omit_zeros
is fine as well.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think omit_zeros is probably the best name
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Personally, I think the dynamic
naming is fine, as IMO it indicates it will use dynamically any of the granularity fields that are specified, as the time progresses or is shifted.
Although, omit_zeroes is a nice alternative name, I would prefer dynamic.
It's more convenient to pass a simple short string than to pass a list of 7 strings. Resolve arrow-py#997
arrow/arrow.py
Outdated
if not timeframes and dynamic: | ||
raise ValueError( | ||
"All provided granulairty values produced an output of zero. " | ||
"Consider using smaller granularities, or set the dynamic flag to False. " | ||
) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
How about defaulting to "just now" rather than raising an exception? If you imagine this being used with user input, it would pretty much be a requirement to always wrap it in a try-except due to this being raised.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Also, you misspelled granularity.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
A user could have a delta of let's say 2 days but only have the granularity of ["year, "month", "week"]. If they had dynamic on, it would output "just now." I think it would be a better idea to error out, then to give an inaccurate answer in that scenario.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah, it doesn't convert in that case e.g. 2 days = 2/7ths of a week? That's a good point then.
Will this still raise the exception if all granularities are provided, but all values are 0, or will it actually display "just now" in that case? I think it should be able to do that.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In fact, it could show "just now" if all units evaluate to zero, regardless of which granularities are provided, not just if all are provided.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Though that would be inconsistent with the behaviour of e.g. granularity="year"
returning '0 years'
rather than 'just now'
. On the other hand, it seems like it raising an error in those cases should be avoidable somehow.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Our main goal is that if you provide a granularity, you expect the output to contain said granularity (with the exception of the omit zeros/dynamic functionality). Trying to figure out whether we should or shouldn't adapt the output to include some other unit seems unnecessary when we already have the auto function in humanize.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Raising an error absolves arrow of having to make the tough decision of how to handle this. Letting the user handle the error gives them flexibility, but not all users might prefer that at the cost of having to practically always handle this error if they're dealing with unknown inputs.
It's a matter of which use case is more common: wanting custom behaviour to handle this edge case, or wanting to not have to think about it. Either way, the user can anticipate what the result will be by subtracting the times and manually inspecting the delta before calling humanize
. If they see the delta will result in all zeros, they can handle it instead of relying on the default behaviour proposed below. Of course, that's not as convenient as just catching an exception, but I don't see a way to make both sides happy.
The most consistent solution may be to return zero in the smallest unit of the given granularity. This would ensure that while dynamic=True
may omit some units in the given granularity, it will never introduce new units. Consider
>>> a = arrow.get(2021, 8, 8)
>>> b = arrow.get(2021, 8, 10)
>>> a.humanize(b, granularity=["year", "month", "week"])
'0 years 0 months and 0 weeks ago'
It has no problem omitting the "2 days" even though it's the only non-zero unit. This is arguably not very useful, but it's what the current behaviour is. There are probably use cases that need to strictly follow the granularity, and those users appreciate this behaviour. Anyway, following from this behaviour, it should then also be acceptable for this to happen
>>> a = arrow.get(2021, 8, 8)
>>> b = arrow.get(2021, 8, 10)
>>> a.humanize(b, granularity=["year", "month", "week"], dynamic=True)
'0 weeks ago'
If the user has dynamic on, that is an expression of an intent to cut down on the zeros in the output. I'd say it's more practical to make a compromise to return 1 zero than to take a strict stance of "must have no zeros" and be forced to raise an exception.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We can only do so much, arrow in the end is a library meant to work together with the dev, not think or do things the dev might not be aware of and does behind the scenes without awareness and not raise an exception that the dev might even be expecting to see raised.
if dynamic and trunc(abs(value)) == 0: | ||
pass | ||
elif trunc(abs(value)) != 1: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Would it make any significant difference to save the value of trunc(abs(value))
rather than calculating it twice? This could also be said for the other parts of the diff that use trunc
.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Decent catch.
Profiling the code, you'd need to run about 10k of the trunc(abs()) calls to even come close to seeing a 1ms difference.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Good work so far, I want to have another pass at it as I ran upon #1019 while testing.
Cheers!
if dynamic and trunc(abs(value)) == 0: | ||
pass | ||
elif trunc(abs(value)) != 1: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Decent catch.
Profiling the code, you'd need to run about 10k of the trunc(abs()) calls to even come close to seeing a 1ms difference.
arrow/arrow.py
Outdated
if not timeframes and dynamic: | ||
raise ValueError( | ||
"All provided granulairty values produced an output of zero. " | ||
"Consider using smaller granularities, or set the dynamic flag to False. " | ||
) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We can only do so much, arrow in the end is a library meant to work together with the dev, not think or do things the dev might not be aware of and does behind the scenes without awareness and not raise an exception that the dev might even be expecting to see raised.
@@ -1122,6 +1122,7 @@ def humanize( | |||
locale: str = DEFAULT_LOCALE, | |||
only_distance: bool = False, | |||
granularity: Union[_GRANULARITY, List[_GRANULARITY]] = "auto", | |||
dynamic: bool = False, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Personally, I think the dynamic
naming is fine, as IMO it indicates it will use dynamically any of the granularity fields that are specified, as the time progresses or is shifted.
Although, omit_zeroes is a nice alternative name, I would prefer dynamic.
Co-authored-by: Kris Fremen <[email protected]>
Pull Request Checklist
Thank you for taking the time to improve Arrow! Before submitting your pull request, please check all appropriate boxes:
tox
ormake test
to find out!).tox -e lint
ormake lint
to find out!).master
branch.If you have any questions about your code changes or any of the points above, please submit your questions along with the pull request and we will try our best to help!
Description of Changes
Closes #996 and #973. I'll add the documentation for dynamic humanize after we make sure we like the approach we have here. Also, I'm linking #983 since I had to make some change to describe_multi that will be useful info for the locale implementation guide.