Bug 42787 – UDM: has_key() and __contains__ differ

Bug 42787 - UDM: has_key() and __contains__ differ


Summary:	UDM: has_key() and __contains__ differ

Status:	NEW

Product:	UCS
Classification:	Unclassified
Component:	UDM (Generic)
Version:	UCS 5.0
Hardware:	Other Linux

Importance:	P5 normal (vote)
Target Milestone:	---
Assigned To:	UMC maintainers
QA Contact:

URL:
Keywords:

Depends on:
Blocks:
	Show dependency tree / graph

Reported:	2016-10-28 13:36 CEST by Florian Best
Modified:	2021-04-14 10:37 CEST (History)
CC List:	2 users (show)

See Also:	44944 47971
What kind of report is it?:	Development Internal
What type of bug is this?:	---
Who will be affected by this bug?:	---
How will those affected feel about the bug?:	---
User Pain:
Enterprise Customer affected?:
School Customer affected?:
ISV affected?:
Waiting Support:
Flags outvoted (downgraded) after PO Review:
Ticket number:
Bug group (optional):	API change
Max CVSS v3 score:

Attachments
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Description Florian Best

2016-10-28 13:36:00 CEST

The methods hay_key() and __contains__ in UDM's base class simpleLDAP differ.

__contains__() checks if the key exists in the modules property_descriptions.
hay_key() does the same plus also checks if the option this property requires is activated at the current object.

The use of has_key() is deprecated and python3 removed this. We should unify the behavior. IMO __contains__ should do what hay_key() currently does.

If we change this we can replace every occurence of "object.hay_key(key)" with "key in object". Some tools like autopep8 are doing this automatically. Some automatic style checkers like pep8 are blaming the use of has_key().

Comment 1 Florian Best

2017-06-22 12:18:14 CEST

We could add a method has_property() which replaces the current behavior of has_key().