René's URL Explorer Experiment

{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"DiscussionForumPosting","headline":"Use a separate model for timing relationships","articleBody":"\u003e To me this is mixing too many concerns:\r\n\u003e 1. Representation of individual submissions\r\n\u003e 2. Temporal relationship between submissions\r\n\r\n\u003e I would prefer to store the relationships (parallel, before, after, next, previous) in a separate data structure which references these `PretalxSubmission` objects.\r\n\u003e Then we wouldn't have this situation where creating a \"complete\" `PretalxSubmission` object requires to steps:\r\n\r\n```python\r\nsubmission = PretalxSubmission(...)  # call `__init__`, which only initialized a part of the object\r\nsubmission.set_talks_in_parallel(...)  # initialize another part of the object\r\nsubmission.set_talks_after(...)  # initialize yet another part of the object\r\n[...]\r\n```\r\n\r\n\u003e Field like `talks_in_parallel: list[str] | None = None` can easily cause to accidents: `my_submission.talks_in_parallel` *sometimes* contains the \"talks in parallel to my submission\", depending on *when* I access the field.\r\n\r\n\u003e That would be a non-trivial change, and the current implementation seems to work, so I'm fine with merging it as it is. But let's try to not walk this path much further, else it might get messy 🙂\r\n\r\n_Originally posted by @NMertsch in https://github.com/EuroPython/programapi/pull/6#discussion_r1623253693_\r\n            ","author":{"url":"https://github.com/egeakman","@type":"Person","name":"egeakman"},"datePublished":"2024-06-01T20:43:41.000Z","interactionStatistic":{"@type":"InteractionCounter","interactionType":"https://schema.org/CommentAction","userInteractionCount":0},"url":"https://github.com/17/programapi/issues/17"}