Skip to content

Fix incorrect usage of .available property#15

Open
cdzombak wants to merge 1 commit into
raman325:masterfrom
cdzombak:cdz/fix-property-usage
Open

Fix incorrect usage of .available property#15
cdzombak wants to merge 1 commit into
raman325:masterfrom
cdzombak:cdz/fix-property-usage

Conversation

@cdzombak

@cdzombak cdzombak commented Sep 25, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Summary by Sourcery

Fix the incorrect usage of the .available property in the BlasterStatusRESTResource class by removing the method call parentheses.

Bug Fixes:

  • Fix incorrect usage of the .available property by removing the method call parentheses.

@sourcery-ai

sourcery-ai Bot commented Sep 25, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Reviewer's Guide by Sourcery

This pull request fixes an incorrect usage of the .available property in the BlasterStatusRESTResource class. The change replaces a method call available() with the correct property access available.

Sequence Diagram

No sequence diagram generated.

File-Level Changes

Change Details Files
Corrected the usage of the available property
  • Changed get_blaster(attr, value).available() to get_blaster(attr, value).available
app/app.py

Tips and commands
  • Trigger a new Sourcery review by commenting @sourcery-ai review on the pull request.
  • Continue your discussion with Sourcery by replying directly to review comments.
  • You can change your review settings at any time by accessing your dashboard:
    • Enable or disable the Sourcery-generated pull request summary or reviewer's guide;
    • Change the review language;
  • You can always contact us if you have any questions or feedback.

@sourcery-ai sourcery-ai Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hey @cdzombak - I've reviewed your changes - here's some feedback:

Overall Comments:

  • Good catch on the property usage. Consider searching for similar instances of this mistake elsewhere in the codebase to ensure consistent usage.
Here's what I looked at during the review
  • 🟢 General issues: all looks good
  • 🟢 Security: all looks good
  • 🟢 Testing: all looks good
  • 🟢 Complexity: all looks good
  • 🟢 Documentation: all looks good

Sourcery is free for open source - if you like our reviews please consider sharing them ✨
Help me be more useful! Please click 👍 or 👎 on each comment to tell me if it was helpful.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant