Conversation
12rambau
left a comment
12rambau
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks a lot for your contribution ! Could you share a small script that showcase this use case so we can add it to the tests ? and also I'm not sure it's necessary to add so many lines to cover your problem and the default behaviour, the join could be applied to all results and only affect description as the others are single element lists.
| fix_description = False | ||
| if headers[-1] == "Description": | ||
| fix_description = True |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
could be done in 1 line:
| fix_description = False | |
| if headers[-1] == "Description": | |
| fix_description = True | |
| fix_description = headers[-1] == "Description" |
| parts = line.split() | ||
| part_result = dict(zip(headers, parts)) | ||
|
|
||
| if fix_description: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
the evaluation of the fix_description could actually be done directly in the if statement with the comment associated so it's clear it's only necessary there.
| part_result = dict(zip(headers, parts)) | ||
|
|
||
| if fix_description: | ||
| part_result["Description"] = " ".join(parts[len(headers) - 1 :]) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
actually open question, if we join them all, the other should not be affected as they are a 1 item list right ? So you might be able to simply add this mechanism to all part_results instead of just the description, avoiding the all if statement in the process.
2 participants
The default splitting splits the description and only takes the first part so we need to join the trailing parts dropped by the zip, when passed lists with different lengths.