fix: remove duplicate @staticmethod decorator from _get_pod_namespace in FileTaskHandler#64518
Closed
nagasrisai wants to merge 3 commits intoapache:mainfrom
Closed
Conversation
The `_get_pod_namespace` method in `FileTaskHandler` had `@staticmethod` applied twice in a row. Python only needs one to make the method static, so the second application is redundant. Removing it to keep the code clean and avoid confusing readers into thinking the duplication is intentional. Fixes apache#64477
Collaborator
|
@nagasrisai, there's already a PR addressing this, and the issue was assigned: #64479 |
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
3 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
While going through the codebase I noticed that
_get_pod_namespaceinfile_task_handler.pyhas@staticmethodwritten twice back to back:Python only needs it once. The second application does nothing at runtime, the method behaves exactly the same either way. The duplication just looks odd to anyone reading it, since it suggests something special might be going on when there really isn't.
This removes the extra decorator and leaves the code as it should be.
Closes #64477