Pass metadata through update block

[Enkidu93]

Fixes #193

---

This change is 

[Enkidu93]

A couple questions:

• I don't love passing the raw "alignment_info" string into the metadata object. I could create a constant in the PlaceMarkers... class?
• Do you think this could present any issues in certain verse range contexts, @isaac091?

[isaac091]

Reviewable status: 0 of 9 files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @ddaspit)

---

machine/corpora/update_usfm_parser_handler.py line 314 at r1 (raw file):

                    # grab the text - both source and row will be incremented in due time...
                    row_texts.append(text)
                    row_metadata = metadata

No issues that I can think of

[ddaspit]

Yes, I think it makes sense to define alignment_info as a constant.

Reviewed 9 of 9 files at r1, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @Enkidu93)

---

machine/corpora/place_markers_usfm_update_block_handler.py line 12 at r1 (raw file):

class PlaceMarkersAlignmentInfo(TypedDict):

I think this is only used in unit tests. We could cast alignment_info to this class when we use it. See my comment below. If we don't use it here, we should just move it to the unit test.

---

machine/corpora/place_markers_usfm_update_block_handler.py line 28 at r1 (raw file):

            len(elements) == 0
            or "alignment_info" not in block.metadata
            or not isinstance(block.metadata["alignment_info"], dict)

It is correct to thoroughly validate the metadata before using it. We could probably get away with doing less. You could just check that alignment_info exists, and then cast it to PlaceMarkersAlignmentInfo. We just assume that the data structure is correct if alignment_info exists. If it isn't correct, it will probablly cause a crash, which is fine, because it would indicate a coding error.

[Enkidu93]

OK, done.

Reviewable status: 8 of 9 files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @ddaspit and @isaac091)

---

machine/corpora/place_markers_usfm_update_block_handler.py line 12 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, ddaspit (Damien Daspit) wrote…

I think this is only used in unit tests. We could cast alignment_info to this class when we use it. See my comment below. If we don't use it here, we should just move it to the unit test.

Makes sense

---

machine/corpora/place_markers_usfm_update_block_handler.py line 28 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, ddaspit (Damien Daspit) wrote…

It is correct to thoroughly validate the metadata before using it. We could probably get away with doing less. You could just check that alignment_info exists, and then cast it to PlaceMarkersAlignmentInfo. We just assume that the data structure is correct if alignment_info exists. If it isn't correct, it will probablly cause a crash, which is fine, because it would indicate a coding error.

OK, done.

---

machine/corpora/update_usfm_parser_handler.py line 314 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, isaac091 (Isaac Schifferer) wrote…

No issues that I can think of

Cool

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 95.91837% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 88.89%. Comparing base (d8aa497) to head (de10ada).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
machine/corpora/usfm_update_block.py	85.71%	1 Missing ⚠️
tests/corpora/test_usfm_manual.py	50.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #202      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   88.91%   88.89%   -0.03%     
==========================================
  Files         282      282              
  Lines       17056    17050       -6     
==========================================
- Hits        15166    15156      -10     
- Misses       1890     1894       +4     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[ddaspit]

Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r2, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @isaac091)