Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
This repository was archived by the owner on Mar 6, 2026. It is now read-only.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Interesting!
This is a little different from our usual "class with
_propertiesdictionary" approach, but does seem to save us some boilerplate. I'll allow it. :-)Do you think we should do this for our other read-only classes?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I though a namedtuple would better communicate that it's a read-only (output-only) property, although our "_properties classes" can also have read-only properties - but yeah, a namedtuple requires much less boilerplate.
(FWIW, I personally view these output-only classes merely as named read-only containers with descriptive attribute names, and using a class with a bunch of read-only properties is just an implementation detail)
We can eventually refactor other output-only classes to namedtuples for consistency, yes, but I wouldn't do it just yet. There's not that much immediate value in it, as that code has already been written, and there might be some legit use cases out there that we don't know about... let's first wait and see how a namedtuple performs when released into the wild.