Add alias constants for safer email property name specification #125
Conversation
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
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Hi, thank you for reviewing this pull request!
I recently started to use this package in a project and noticed a few things that would really improve it even more.
I'm submitting them in separate pull requests.
I noticed that it is sometimes tedious to (correctly) type the names of the various properties for every Email/get request.
The make this easier I added an EmailProperties and an EmailBodyPartProperties class to the email module.
These contain only the names for all standard properties for these two objects.
This way developers don't have to type the names themselves but can rely on these constants.
I made the two classes available on the jmapc package level via the init.py files.
I didn't add a test for this as it didn't seem necessary.
If you feel differently about this please let me know, I'm happy to add a test in that case (but please also let me know what to test for ;) ).
All tests and lints passed on the last commit.
There was no AI involved in writing this code.