Skip to content
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

Clarify requirement of keys for a multi_cached function #645

Merged

Conversation

padraic-shafer
Copy link
Contributor

Clarify requirement of keys for a multi_cached function

Updated the docstring of multi_cached decorator to clarify that the keys returned by @multicached cached_dict_func(request_keys=..., keys_from_attr="request_keys", ...) should be the same keys that are passed as request_keys.

Are there changes in behavior for the user?

No. Just documenting the existing behavior.

Related issue number

This fixes a misinterpretation of the expected behavior that was introduced in #637.

Checklist

  • [N/A ] I think the code is well written
  • [N/A ] Unit tests for the changes exist
  • [X ] Documentation reflects the changes
  • [N/A ] Add a new news fragment into the CHANGES folder
    • name it <issue_id>.<type> (e.g. 588.bugfix)
    • if you don't have an issue_id change it to the pr id after creating the PR
    • ensure type is one of the following:
      • .feature: Signifying a new feature.
      • .bugfix: Signifying a bug fix.
      • .doc: Signifying a documentation improvement.
      • .removal: Signifying a deprecation or removal of public API.
      • .misc: A ticket has been closed, but it is not of interest to users.
    • Make sure to use full sentences with correct case and punctuation, for example: Fix issue with non-ascii contents in doctest text files.

@Dreamsorcerer Dreamsorcerer merged commit 0cedbb2 into aio-libs:master Jan 14, 2023
@padraic-shafer padraic-shafer deleted the multi-cached-decorator-docs branch January 14, 2023 22:42
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants