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
{{ message }}
Repository navigation
docs(foundation): extraction.py's engine-check comment cites an alias #750 removed #756
pcapkit/foundation/extraction.py:430-432 explains its issubclass(engine, EngineBase) check by citing a
code shape that no longer exists. #750 removed the alias it names.
Reproduction
The comment, on 73f09aecb:
# NOTE: checked against ``EngineBase`` rather than ``Engine``: every built-in
# engine subclasses the base directly (``engines/pcap.py`` imports it as
# ``EngineBase as Engine``) precisely so that it is *not* auto-registered by
But pcapkit/foundation/engines/pcap.py:13 reads from pcapkit.foundation.engines.engine import EngineBase, and :29 is class PCAP(EngineBase[Frame]). There is no as Engine anywhere in that file.
Expected behavior
The comment should cite the shape that is actually there. Its conclusion is still right — built-in
engines do subclass the base directly, which is why the check is against EngineBase — so only the
parenthetical is wrong.
System information
OS Version: Linux 5.10 (Amazon Linux 2 int)
Python Version: 3.14.7
Python Implementation: CPython
pcapkit Version: checkout at 73f09aecb
Additional context
Found while cross-reviewing #752. It is the Engine family, not the ProtocolBase family #752 touches,
and sits ~370 lines from that PR's nearest edit, so it was correctly left out rather than folded in.
Non-urgent: a comment, not logic, so nothing behaves wrongly. Worth fixing because it points a reader at
an alias that was deliberately removed — the same class of defect as a stale line-number citation, and #657
has spent eighteen review rounds on exactly that.
Activity