That looks good, could you add a quick unittest so we don't accidentally regress?

Yes, no problems on my part, the decorator module is a single file just to
help people that wants to include it and have less dependencies.

On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Hynek Schlawack notifications@github.com
wrote:

As discussed in #77
#77, this PR bundles
(to avoid dependencies) the decorator.py module and uses it to fix the
behavior of prometheus_client's decorators.

The efficacy can be verified by using example view from the README and
then doing a:

from inspect import getargspec
getargspec(process_request)
ArgSpec(args=['t'], varargs=None, keywords=None, defaults=None)

Without this patch, you get:

ArgSpec(args=[], varargs='args', keywords='kwargs', defaults=None)

instead.

Let me now what you think.

Also pinging @micheles https://github.com/micheles out of courtesy and

to ensure he doesn’t feel we violate his copyright.

You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:

#91
Commit Summary

• Bundle decorator.py and fix decorators

File Changes

• M .coveragerc
  https://github.com/prometheus/client_python/pull/91/files#diff-0 (4)
• M NOTICE
  https://github.com/prometheus/client_python/pull/91/files#diff-1 (3)
• M prometheus_client/core.py
  https://github.com/prometheus/client_python/pull/91/files#diff-2
  (38)
• A prometheus_client/decorator.py
  https://github.com/prometheus/client_python/pull/91/files#diff-3
  (417)

Patch Links:

• https://github.com/prometheus/client_python/pull/91.patch
• https://github.com/prometheus/client_python/pull/91.diff

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#91, or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACWYcHT25T7oA9sc3uu03o9FP98mtKYiks5qXh_rgaJpZM4JQw7E
.

I’ve added unit tests for hopefully all decorators and the tests still pass.

Thanks!