Inner, outer class consistency

[trappitsch]

I thought of tackling issue #15, which is also on the todo list for v1.0 (#190). Inner classes seem to have the advantage that the individual channels, etc., are not exposed directly to the user, so I think it makes more sense. On the todo list of instruments to fix are:

• instruments/abstract_instrument/optical_spectrum_analyzer
• instruments/abstract_instrument/oscilloscope
• instruments/abstract_instrument/power_supply
• newport/agilis
• newport/newportesp301
• tektronix/tekdpo4104
• tektronix/textds224
• tektronix/tektds5xx
• srs/srsdg645

As an example, I started with the srs/srsdg645, mostly to see how it goes and discuss above list. Pinging @scasagrande for ideas, comments, etc.

[coveralls]

Coverage increased (+0.0002%) to 99.483% when pulling 460a701 on trappitsch:inner_outer_classes_consistency into 5cdba01 on Galvant:master.

[scasagrande]

Coverage decreased (-3.0e-05%) to 99.482%

Okay I might need to add a minimum failure delta because that is ridiculous 😂

[trappitsch]

@scasagrande Is the consistency idea here to move above classes to inner ones and first SRS example ok in your opinion?

[scasagrande]

Yeah I think that's fine. It's what I did for the FunctionGenerator ABC and that was a bit of a pain to do, so sticking with that will be helpful 😂

[trappitsch]

sounds good. i'll have a look and start plowing through some classes :)

[trappitsch]

The Thorlabs APT seems already adequately specified. Must have missed this in the first go-around, removing it from above list.

[trappitsch]

The abstract instrument SignalGenerator uses single and multi channel. I think it might be more appropriate to fix inner-outer class consistency when working on issue #156. Does this make sense @scasagrande?

[trappitsch]

Looks like coveralls contradicts itself now. Most of the failed coverage seem to come when numpy is None, however, only in the Unit Test task...

[trappitsch]

The classes I found that had inner-outer consistencies are now changed. I think this is ready for review @scasagrande

[scasagrande]

Yeah the "unit test" one from coveralls is just the first job that is submitted to coveralls, not the conclusion of the parallel jobs "coverage/coveralls" I need to fix that, so just rely on the second please

…

On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 2:21 PM Reto Trappitsch ***@***.***> wrote: Looks like coveralls contradicts itself now. Most of the failed tests seem to come when numpy is None... — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#321 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAL3S6IBHBR5Y62RBNTVMNTUXWRDXANCNFSM5MT5NTYA> . Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS <https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675> or Android <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub>. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

-- Steven Casagrande, MSc Waterloo, Ontario

[scasagrande]

Coveralls has been fixed, just refresh your branch 👍

[trappitsch]

Yey, even coverall passes now :)

[scasagrande]

lgtm!