Conversation
| demo_url = 'https://demo.meteonorm.com/v1/' | ||
| return demo_url |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What's wrong with the original? For a single URL definition as the whole function, isn't it okay just to leave it as:
| demo_url = 'https://demo.meteonorm.com/v1/' | |
| return demo_url | |
| return 'https://demo.meteonorm.com/v1/' |
Same for the demo_api_key
Maybe there's something about python (style?) here that I don't know
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's just a matter of convenience when I was hacking around locally. With the line split into two, you can run the single-line manually that defines the variable and then run the content of a test function.
Tests are a bit messy to debug sometimes because of all the magic they employ.
|
@AdamRJensen are we confident that we should switch to the new values in this PR, or do we need to wait to hear back from Meteonorm about the change? |
That is hard to say. I suggest that we merge it before making a new release if we do not hear back from them. |
kandersolar
left a comment
kandersolar
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We heard back from Meteonorm that the data changes are intentional. Let's merge this and maybe consider different testing strategies later.
|
Test failures are unrelated (the python 3.9 issue which was fixed elsewhere). Thanks @AdamRJensen! |
3 participants
docs/sphinx/source/whatsnewfor all changes. Includes link to the GitHub Issue with:issue:`num`or this Pull Request with:pull:`num`. Includes contributor name and/or GitHub username (link with:ghuser:`user`).remote-data) and Milestone are assigned to the Pull Request and linked Issue.The Meteonorm iotools tests recently started failing due to changes on their end.