Fix sonarqube findings#552
Conversation
![github-advanced-security[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/57789?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
…anches, removed assignments with unref values
…anches, removed assignments with unref values
…rsion, and added cache clean, to address SonarQube findings
…ng flagged for using cleartext ftp:// protocol
jdw-creare
force-pushed
the
feature/sq_findings
branch
from
12335c8 to
1452ed1
Compare
…from setup.py to pyproject.toml
…nsition from setup.py to pyproject.toml" This reverts commit 65f77b4.
|
mpu-creare
left a comment
mpu-creare
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just a few ranting comments, please proceed with the merge.
| self._is_uniform = None | ||
|
|
||
| else: | ||
| elif self.coordinates.size != 0: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I personally find the if - pass more readable in this case... but oh well.
| c = StackedCoordinates(c) | ||
| else: | ||
| c = ArrayCoordinates1d(c) | ||
| if not isinstance(c, BaseCoordinates): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
oh interesting... in this case disallowing 'pass' creates an extra nest -- interesting.
| def copy(self): | ||
| return PolarCoordinates(self.center, self.radius, self.theta, dims=self.dims) | ||
|
|
||
| # TODO return PolarCoordinates when possible |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I generally dislike getting rid of TODOs -- this is probably a great hint for some feature we didn't have time to implement but thought about when this was written... I suppose it's old enough that it no longer serves as a hint. Don't mind me, I'm just ranting today.
| if exist_ok: | ||
| pass | ||
| else: | ||
| if not exist_ok: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Here's an instance I wholeheartedly agree with!
| wget && \ | ||
| apt-get clean | ||
| COPY . /opt/podpac | ||
| WORKDIR /opt/podpac |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks the old image gets podpac from PYPI, whereas the new version installs it from the local repository. Not sure I really care, just noting the difference.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Absolutely! I should've called that out in a commit message or something. I wanted to make sure it built with the very latest code. Of course, now it comes with the prerequisite that you build the dockerfile from within a full checkout of the repo, whereas before you could just build the dockerfile separately if you wanted to.
3 participants
The most significant change here is to switch the example dockerfile from Conda to vanilla python.
This PR also fixes three kinds of findings:
ifstatements that were onlypass