On 3/30/20 11:41 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 25.03.2020 um 00:20 hat John Snow geschrieben:
>> This doesn't fix everything in here, but it does help clean up the
>> pylint report considerably.
>>
>> This should be 100% style changes only; the intent is to make pylint
>> more useful by working on establishing a baseline for iotests that we
>> can gate against in the future.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: John Snow <js...@redhat.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@redhat.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Max Reitz <mre...@redhat.com>
>
>> @@ -550,8 +546,8 @@ def flatten_qmp_object(self, obj, output=None,
>> basestr=''):
>> if output is None:
>> output = dict()
>> if isinstance(obj, list):
>> - for i in range(len(obj)):
>> - self.flatten_qmp_object(obj[i], output, basestr + str(i) +
>> '.')
>> + for i, atom in enumerate(obj):
>> + self.flatten_qmp_object(atom, output, basestr + str(i) +
>> '.')
>
> I think atom isn't strictly the right word because we expect nested data
> structures (as shown by the recursive call). If I understand correctly,
> what Python calls things in lists is "items".
>
I can't imagine how the philosophers felt when they discovered subatomic
particles.
--js
