If you have done the minimum and at least set a type hint, or if your ide is smart enough to check what calls the function and what it passes, then it’ll be flagged.
What’s the purpose of foo? Why an ambiguous single character variable? What if the property was there but the value was null? Why not use (assuming JS) optional chaining?
def foo(x): return x.whatevrNo linter is going to catch that.
It’s python, just use type hinting already and your linter will catch that.
Also some winters can look at the use of food and see the type being passed in.
Yes you can use static type hinting and the static type checker (Mypy or Pyright) will catch that. Linters (Pylint) won’t.
Autocorrect got you pretty bad, there.
I was very confused, why we’re suddenly talking about rationing food during winter. 🙃
Holy crap that’s wild, new phones autocorrect is out to get me
Not with an example that simple and poor, no.
If you have done the minimum and at least set a type hint, or if your ide is smart enough to check what calls the function and what it passes, then it’ll be flagged.
Always love seeing the trope:
How would you make it non-awful, without specifying static types?
I guess, a unit test would catch it, but needing 100% test coverage to catch typos isn’t exactly great…
I use a spell checker in my IDE. It would catch this.
What’s awful about this example? The only thing I do is access an object member. Does your code not do that??
What’s the purpose of foo? Why an ambiguous single character variable? What if the property was there but the value was null? Why not use (assuming JS) optional chaining?
I’d approach it more like this:
function getWhatevrProp(userData) ( const default = { whatevr: "n/a" }; return { ...default, ...userData }.whatevr; }Sorry, read too fast the first time. It’s more likely Python. I also don’t know Python well enough to give recommendations on that.