Simplify enriched datetime code #761
Open
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
torotil
force-pushed
the
refactor-enriched_datetime
branch
from
750f4cf to
5e345db
Compare
torotil
force-pushed
the
refactor-enriched_datetime
branch
from
5e345db to
6151a5a
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This removes the proxy classes
EnrichedDateandEnrichedDateTimeas they don’t actually add any functionality that would justify the complexity. I think it’s a good next step, but in general I think this sub-system needs more work.I took the liberty to freely break the API with this PR because I didn’t even know what to keep compatible with, as the code and documentation seem out-of-sync. If needed I’d happily adjust the code to keep the compatibility in some way or the other.
Open questions for me are:
timezone=Truesupport: From what I gathered from the sqlalchemy docs it would need specific implementations per DB-backend. I don’t think the implementation in the arrow module would work across different ones.python_type: I couldn’t find any documentation or usage of this, so I removed it. As far as I could find out it’s only defined for actual types notTypeDecorators.NB: I don’t think this is ready for merging yet, but I think it’s best to discuss things with actual code in mind.