Avoid ambiguity in graphene.Mutation docstring [documentation]#1381
Merged
Conversation
The code example in docstring starts with `from graphene import Mutation` and defines a `class Mutation` later. This definition would shadow previously imported name and (which is more important) confuses a reader about usage of this class — one need to keep in mind that previous usage of `Mutation` is imported from graphene and have not been overridden yet. This PR changes an import-from statement to an import statement, so `graphene.Mutation` is used explicitly. This approach is consistent with other code examples in docs (e. g. https://docs.graphene-python.org/en/v2.1.9/types/mutations/). Another option is to change name of example class Mutation to something more clear (maybe SchemaMutation or RootMutation), but I'm not sure what name to choose. Only docstring is updated, no code changes.
belkka
changed the title
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
The code example in docstring starts with
from graphene import Mutationand defines aclass Mutationlater. This definition would shadow previously imported name and (which is more important) confuses a reader about usage of this class — one need to keep in mind that previous usage ofMutationis imported from graphene and have not been overridden yet.This PR changes an "import-from" statement to an "import" statement, so
graphene.Mutationis referred explicitly. This approach seems to be consistent with other code examples in the docs (e. g. see https://docs.graphene-python.org/en/v2.1.9/types/mutations/).Another option is to change name of example class Mutation to something more explicit (maybe SchemaMutation or RootMutation), but I'm not sure what name to choose.
Only docstring is updated, no code changes.