Open
Conversation
Co-authored-by: Toby Harradine <me@tobyharradine.id.au>
The deep reload proposed by Toby runs into some problems with the package ending up with a mix of objects (classes, functions, etc.) from both old and new module.
Jackenmen
added
Type: Enhancement
github-actions
bot
added
Category: Cogs - Downloader
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Description of the changes
Depends on #6693 - the actual change is literally just the last commit in this PR (-31 lines).
I wanted to limit #6693 to only have the CogManager namespace changes, without modifying the reload logic.
From what I can tell, the custom reload logic results in a more weird behaviour than you get with the simpler removal of the package from
sys.modules, which is something we're already doing anyway.Notably,
iscomparison against enums should work properly after this change, which has proved to be an issue previously.Have the changes in this PR been tested?
No