-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 344
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Review public/private methods and classes #909
Comments
Is anything a public Python API in tljh? The Spawner class names are necessarily public, since they are exposed in configuration, but I'm not sure anything in the tljh package is considered an API for user consumption, and I don't think private naming conventions are particularly helpful if that's the case, since it would apply to every module and every function. But if I'm wrong about that, we should definitely be explicit! |
This was prompted by https://discourse.jupyter.org/t/named-server-and-unique-workdirectories/19668 where I thought a spawner derived from TLJH's spawner was used. However after a bit of digging it looks like it's based on SystemdSpawner, and not TLJH's spawner. |
Following #912, this is now what it looks like. the-littlest-jupyterhub/tljh/user_creating_spawner.py Lines 8 to 10 in e6fe1f2
With regards to the |
@manics are you okay with not getting this done before 1.0.0, or working this ~today or similar to unblock a 1.0.0 release? |
I don't think it's a blocker, should we close this? I don't think we need to rush a 1.0.0 out. It's potentially disruptive due to the large jump in JupyterHub version, do we have enough people available to provide user support? Alternatively we could push a pre-release out and advertise it as ready for testing by experienced admins? |
I figure its a good idea to do this, but I'm out of time and energy to drive it. I'm fine with leaving it open or closing, but don't think we should hold back a release if we don't work it.
Ah, I thought we had to make 1.0.0 directly because of limitations in bootstrap script, but I realize we can do a 1.0.0b1 after testing how it resolves versions - wieeeee thank you @manics for doing that so thoroughly!!! Okay, let's go for 1.0.0b1!? I really want to get something out though! |
Proposed change
With 1.0.0 pending I think we should review what we consider public (people should be free to use/extend/subclass) or private (use at your own risk).
For example, I've just noticed the this spawner has the generic name
user_creating_spawner.CustomSpawner
the-littlest-jupyterhub/tljh/user_creating_spawner.py
Line 9 in 2d645a7
Should we rename it, or make it private?
Alternative options
Do nothing
Who would use this feature?
Developers and administrators extending TLJH by subclassing classes or reusing functions.
(Optional): Suggest a solution
Either:
_
following common Python practicesThe text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: