You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
It isn't clear to me how the auto-generated model.is_<state>() methods for HSM substates are named in the case of non-standard separator characters. I am using a non-standard separator, -, because I'm working in a code base where snake_case is strongly desired for all methods. However, I think this is breaking the generation of is_ methods, because is_superstate_name-substate_name is, of course, not a legal Python identifier.
I could use camel case or some other scheme, but I'd strongly prefer not to...
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The current version (0.8.6) of transitions only supports root state checks (with allow_substates) and the generic model.state == C_2_a approach.
In f3c8ce8 I added support for FunctionWrappers for state check. Previously, they had only been used for auto transitions. I documented this feature in the HSM section of the README. Let me know if that is what you were looking for.
I am closing this since there has not been feedback in about 14 days. If your issue persists, feel free to comment anyway and I will reopen the issue if necessary.
First of all, thank you for this library.
It isn't clear to me how the auto-generated
model.is_<state>()
methods for HSM substates are named in the case of non-standard separator characters. I am using a non-standard separator,-
, because I'm working in a code base where snake_case is strongly desired for all methods. However, I think this is breaking the generation of is_ methods, becauseis_superstate_name-substate_name
is, of course, not a legal Python identifier.I could use camel case or some other scheme, but I'd strongly prefer not to...
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: